Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Water and Sewerage Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am delighted to have the opportunity today to initiate this debate about regulation of the water industry because, of all public services, water is the one that is most central to human life and well-being. If it is managed well, people always pay up without question for their water and sewerage. They do not want to give it a second thought. They want to turn on the tap for a drink, watch the rain run down the gutters and roadside grates and flush the toilet. They do not feel the need to say thank you to the Government, the regulator or the water companies because they feel that water is a right that they earn by being a citizen of this country.
Yet if anything goes wrong—if the water is brown when it comes out of the tap, if it does not come out of the tap at all, if the drains are blocked, or if people are suddenly asked to pay a great deal more—there starts to be public outrage.
There is no question but that there is an immense amount of consumer dissatisfaction with the water industry at present. In a survey by the Consumers Association last year, the water industry came out bottom of all the regulated industries on every count of consumer satisfaction, including satisfaction with delivery and relationship with the consumer.
It is interesting that a study undertaken by Elaine Kempson into water debt and disconnection, published last month by the Policy Studies Institute, showed clearly that water debt had increased by nine times since privatisation. So people are no longer happy simply to pay their water bill and forget it. The document concluded that the reason was partly the resentment and dissatisfaction that people feel about the industry.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that the Opposition have been interested in the past few months in the issue of public ownership and what it signifies. Water is what public ownership means. As the rain comes down and the children play in the rivers or streams this summer, they and their parents do not believe that the substance they are using is anything other than publicly owned. That explains the resentment about this privatisation of this utility. People have never believed that water belonged to anyone so that it could be sold off.
It is interesting that yesterday's debate about the environment agency and pollution control and regulation saw the House in a remarkably consensual mood. There

was no vote. There was agreement among all hon. Members that the agency could be a good move forward if the correct powers were given to it.
However, there is no such consensus about the operation of the water industry. I should like to spend a few moments today to discover where the blame for that lies, to what extent it lies with the Government or with regulation, and to what extent the two are indivisible.
In the earlier clauses of the Water Act 1989, the two are balanced and almost indivisible, because the duties are placed on the Minister or, if he delegates them, on the Director general of the Office of Water Services. It is clear that the regulator's first duty was to look after the financial well-being and management of the water companies. His duty to act in the interests of customers and consumers secondary, which could be one element of what has gone wrong.
The regulatory system—I shall return to the subject of whether it is the regulator or the Government—has failed on five counts, however. It has failed on prices, interference in the industry's charging systems, the absence of interference where it is necessary, undertaking the necessary research into the industry, and the inability to devolve to local democratic committees some of the consumer-based interests that should be represented in the water industry's regulatory system. Colleagues might want to mention others.
The system has failed on prices, because the regulator's main duty is to be an economic regulator, and his main power to act on behalf of consumers is to limit charges. The regulator was to control the industry by suggesting a K factor, with which we are all now familiar, by which companies could raise prices over and above inflation in a particular year. Unfortunately, in 1989 there were no negative K factors, although no excuses were given. The companies had to comply with factors that were all positive numbers, well above the inflation rate.
By 1993, it was clear that the K factors were over-generous, profits were rising sharply, prices were on the increase, and these rapidly growing multinational enterprises had a general cushion of surplus. As time went on, it became clear that the cushion was being creamed off at the top for top executives and share options. In England and Wales, profits had risen from £710 million in 1989 to £1.5 billion in 1993–94, with a 67 per cent. increase in water charges. Top salaries had increased by 228 per cent. since privatisation.
Those three issues caused an immense public furore. The public have realised that privatisation has not been in their interests, but has simply been in those of the big companies and their shareholders and chief executives, and that the regulator appeared to be unable to do anything to stop that.
In 1993, Ian Byatt recognised that the initial K factors were probably too generous, and that the asset base and ease with which the water industry could cope with its economic future had probably been underestimated. At about that time, I became really interested in the water industry, and the cross-party group was established.
Time and again, we suggested that it might be appropriate to claw back some of the excess profit. The reaction was that nothing could be clawed back, because the surplus proved how creditable the regulatory system had been. The regulator even suggested that it showed how good the incentive that he had presented with the K factors had been when the industry was privatised in 1989.
Had the Government and the Director general of Water Services said that they had got it wrong in 1992–93—I know that the system was for a five-year price review, and that was only three years on—and that they would claw back some of the surplus and pull the price regime right down, much of the public anger and outrage would have dissipated, and the Government would be finding it easier to justify what is happening in the water industry.
In 1994, I believe that they got the K factor review wrong again, as do a number of experts in the City, as the "Panorama" programme showed. It is interesting that, less than a year after the review that was supposed to impose tight controls over the water companies, North West Water has been able to pay back £6.50 to each of its customers.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: It is somewhat strange that Sir Desmond Pitcher, the chairman of North West Water, should have written to all the consumers in the north-west to make them aware that the company is proposing a bonus of £6.50 per customer for the next five years because of the additional profit that it is making from the way in which the industry is regulated, as if it is giving us something, when in reality it is overcharging us in the first place.

Mrs. Jackson: That endorses my point. North West Water certainly has £6.50 per customer to spare following the K factor review last year. As I know that other hon. Members want to speak, I shall move on to the next issue.
The Government and the regulator have also got the charging systems fundamentally wrong. There is a contradiction between statements that charging systems were the responsibility of the water companies and that they were free to manage their businesses and choose how they wanted customers to pay for water and sewerage services, and, on the other hand, the claim that they can do so only if they place the main emphasis on a metering system of payment in the long term.
Ian Byatt's preference for metering is well known throughout the industry, and he is entitled to that opinion. He wrote about it in "Paying for Water" in 1991, and he still refers to that document, even though it is five years old, in reply to any queries about Ofwat's policy on the issue.
"Paying for Water" was written before the Government had finally abandoned the poll tax, and while the Conservative party was still claiming that it was fair to make each household pay for public services in proportion to the amount that they used them. That is the principle of metering that is set out in "Paying for Water", and it is the poll tax principle, which has been discredited and booted out by this Parliament. It is simply inappropriate for water and sewerage, which are the most essential public services.
The average water bill of an ordinary household breaks down roughly as follows: 40 per cent. relates to the drinking water supply, of which some 80 per cent. relates to the fixed cost of water treatment works—pipework and the infrastructure that delivers that drinking water—and 20 per cent. relates to the volume of water that goes through that infrastructure; 20 per cent. of the water bill relates to surface water drainage and the pipe work, guttering and infrastructure that takes water off the roads,

gardens and land. It cannot be appropriate to measure that by metering domestic households. The remainder of the bill—a further 40 per cent.—relates to the sewerage side of the industry, waste water and sewage treatment. Surely we shall not try to measure the amount of sewage that each household produces.
If my arithmetic is correct, the argument about conserving water and metering relates to just 8 per cent. of the industry's costs for average domestic water purposes. Some 30 per cent. of the water used by an ordinary household is to flush the toilet, and only 10 per cent. is used for extra household activities such as washing the car and watering plants. The remainder is used for baths, showers, washing food and drinking. Hon. Members on both sides of the House do not feel that it is important that people should cut down on those.
The compulsory element in insisting that people pay for water and sewerage by a measured system is inappropriate. If the regulator says that he is neutral on that issue and that companies can choose their own charging systems, it cannot be appropriate for him to be so paranoid about insisting on metering, when water companies are trying to do the best for their customers.
In Yorkshire, there has been much public outrage about compulsory metering, especially on housing association estates in Bradford, Sheffield and other big towns, where people do not have large incomes. Yorkshire Water has been prepared to listen to public concern, and has met groups from the Lower Grange estate in Bradford and local authority associations.
It decided to move right away from the compulsory element of charging, even on new properties, and its decision was endorsed by both the local housing federation and the local Ofwat customer services committee. Yorkshire Water took that decision at board level and said that it would devise notional rateable values for every new house built since 1989, so that every customer in Yorkshire could have that choice. What could be wrong with that?
Unfortunately, the regulator's response was to write a letter to the managing director of every other water company in the country, saying:
I am disappointed that the company has decided to allow this concession"—
not choice, but a concession—
to customers in new properties. However, before this scheme can come into operation Yorkshire Water will need to demonstrate to me that any notional rateable values avoid any bias".
He therefore has an opportunity to sit on those notional rateable values before Yorkshire Water can put its policy into effect.
The regulator goes on to say:
The ability to opt for a charge based on a notional rateable value will be strictly time-limited and subsequent owner-occupiers would not be allowed to opt for a charge based on notional rateable value.
From someone who says that he will not interfere in charging methods, that is incredible. I do not know whether it applies just to Yorkshire Water, but it comes after Mr. Byatt's refusal to accept the renomination of the chairman of the Yorkshire customer services committee, who was well backed by Members of Parliament from both sides and consumer groups throughout the county.
That interference is another indication of the failure of the present system—Government plus regulator. Since becoming involved in this issue, I have been surprised


at how many press releases, research papers and briefing documents are produced by the water regulator's office. Some of those comparative statistics are useful, while the press releases and comments are less useful. But I am also surprised at how little good information and research has been done on relevant issues.
For example, when Ofwat commissioned research into different charging methods through the Institute of Fiscal Studies about two years ago, the institute was specifically asked not to investigate the possibility of charging on the basis of council tax bands. It could investigate charging on any other property bands, even though of the options being considered by the water companies, council tax bands made the most sense. It was left to the Water Companies Association to do the best piece of research on charging systems, which they presented to the Minister last September, and to which the Minister responded two weeks ago.
Similarly, the Select Committee was surprised that, given all the controversy about disconnections and whether those happened because people would not or could not pay, no research had been done—none was even authorised or intended to be authorised—by Ofwat or Mr. Byatt on the reasons for disconnections. The first piece of evidence on that has now been produced by the Policy Studies Institute. It shows that, as we all knew, people are disconnected because they have not enough money to pay the ever rising bills. Those are just some of the issues on which the opportunity for good-quality research has been missed.
The same applies to conservation. If we are to debate whether the best means of conserving water is to make a major effort to reduce leakage or introduce domestic water metering, Ofwat should have authorised research to discover that. Instead, it has been left, once again, to someone else, in this case the National Rivers Authority to do the best piece of research about leakage. The water companies, too, are beginning to make progress in that area.
I have been disappointed—and, to an extent, shocked—by the lack of responsibility that the director general has taken over safety and security within sewage treatment works. The question was raised in Yorkshire whether it should be totally contracted out to private contractors. The director general had nothing to say on that, and gave private contractors no guidelines to ensure that sewage was treated safely and securely. Until recently, there were no guidelines on, for example, specifications on sewer pipework. That has been of great concern to clay pipe manufacturers, who have felt that, since privatisation, the water industry has not been acting responsibly in undertaking that sort of research and information. On all those issues, the regulator has left a great deal unsaid and uninvestigated.
Many Opposition Members, and possibly Conservative Members, have been unable to understand why the regulator had nothing to say on chief executives' pay and salaries, and why Mr. Byatt felt that he had nothing to say on charging systems to the major local authority conference on the subject on 13 March in Liverpool.
We do not understand why he had nothing to say to people who complained about compulsory metering to the Ofwat customer services committees. As it was an issue of charging, he was not prepared to include those complaints in his published schedule of complaints. A whole list exists of areas where the regulator or the

regulator/Government have been unwilling or unable to listen and respond to the immense public concern that has developed about the industry.
I should like to feel that it is not too late even for this Government, but I think that we will have to wait for the next one. The root of the problem lies in the lack of understanding that we are talking not about a commodity which can be left to the free market and in the private sector, and which somehow will be all right with a bit of economic regulation drawing together the statistics, but about a public resource and utility—water, which is owned by the public.
Unless the Government and regulator absolutely understand that basic fact, it is never going to be right. The only answer is for the Government to accept that responsibility and the outrage that the public feel about what has happened to their crucial public industry, and to say that, for the moment, they will take over the regulation of the industry, and take responsibility for it.
Only yesterday, we agreed on a consensual basis that we have the makings in the environment agency of an excellent body that will control one side of the whole water cycle business. The other side is a mess. It will remain a mess until the Government get hold of it, take it out of the so-called independent regulator's hands, pull it together and deal with it in the interests of the public.

10.32

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on procuring this debate, and on her consistent interest in the water industry. The House and country will be grateful for that. She has made some fair points. I declare a non-interest. I am the honorary president of the Water Companies Association. I am not paid, and it has not asked me to speak, but it is a matter of record.
I was at one stage a Minister with responsibility for the environment and the water industry in Northern Ireland. When I was a junior Minister at the Department of Employment, I noticed how the sewerage system in London had not kept up with demands. Bazalgette sewers seemed to back-fill during storms, and water reached the third floor of the Department of Employment offices in Tothill street. It was not very pleasant.
The hon. Lady has a couple of things wrong. If one lined up the water company chairmen, picked the one in the middle and asked what they were paid, the answer would be that they were paid 20 per cent. less than the leader of the Labour party's press agent. It is worth putting across the fact that, even when the Labour party was so proud that the water industry was nationalised, 20 per cent. of the country's water consumers received their supplies from companies that had not been nationalised. It is also worth noting that some people, including an uncle of mine in Shropshire, had their own water supply.
Therefore, the idea that the water industry was all in the hands of nationalised industries under chairmen appointed by Ministers is wrong. One of the reasons why the Labour party has been traditionally so in favour of state-controlled industries is that that allows it to appoint people to those jobs, rather than people being chosen on merit.
When the Labour party decides what it intends to renationalise, it would be interesting to know whether it intends to nationalise water supply companies that have


never been nationalised. If it proposes to go further than it has gone before, it should be willing to say so openly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who may speak for the Opposition in the debate will say clearly whether they intend to renationalise any water company, and, if so, whether they intend to renationalise all of them.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough made an important point about whether ordinary domestic consumers in ordinary homes—small houses and flats—should have to pay the long-run marginal costs of their supply, or pay more of an average cost. No real debate exists about industrial consumers and large users. There is no point in discussing that further. The interesting question is whether people living in small household units, especially those who do not have the opportunity to run a garden hose all day and all night through the summer so that they can have a better-looking lawn than their neighbours, should have a meter, or some alternative system that would have the same sort of effect.
The information that the hon. Lady gave about the degree of discretionary cost that the ordinary consumer and the small household might have in relation to the water supply was interesting and important. I think in the same way in relation to dealing with the cost of disposal of waste water, and of treatment of isolated pockets of population and their sewage—a legitimate matter of debate, which will be raised by my hon. Friends representing the south-west.
The Government could easily have said that some of the cost should have been met on a pooling basis. Issues involving the coastline and the distribution of population are not fully appreciated by those of us who represent or live in areas like London, which does not have anything like the same level of treatment expenses as coastal areas.
I want to go a stage further. I put it to the hon. Lady and to the House that it is ludicrous to believe that, under predominantly public ownership, a golden age of water and sewerage existed. Every five years or so, a Minister, who may be called the Secretary of State for the Environment or some other title, will announce that we need £20,000 million of capital investment.
Year after year, five years after five years, a Minister would make that great announcement, and the investment would not happen, because capital investment in the water industry—both in relation to supply and disposal—had to compete with capital investment and current expenditure in education, the health service, defence, and the railways, and with subsidising other nationalised industries, which were losing a fortune. Investment for quality, equality of improvement and higher and more modern standards of sewage treatment just did not happen.
People should consider water companies' profits—here I go beyond the Water Companies Association companies, because they are involved only in water supply and not in treatment—and relate them to the degree of investment in the past few years. It would have been helpful to the House if the hon. Lady had given the figures on the investment level increase, and if she had information on how companies profit surpluses relate to their capital investment. If the hon. Lady wants me to give way, I shall happily do so.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I accept that the investment level has gone up substantially, but what I and, I suspect, water

customers do not accept is that they, in the past five years, through price increases of 67 per cent., have carried that degree of new investment cost, especially when the whole purpose of privatisation was said to have been to enable new companies in the private sector to have greater flexibility, to borrow in the longer term, and to finance their investment in that way.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady makes a better argument, and I acknowledge that.
There are arguments about what level of gearing the companies should have aimed at. They are pretty secure and stable. They are regulated, so they are unlikely to go bust. They can borrow money on pretty fine terms. They are of interest to major investors, who know that there is a long-term customer relationship; it is not similar to investing in motor car manufacture or some of the other things that may go through fashions. As the hon. Lady says, we shall continue to need water.
There is also the issue of fairness between different companies on the green dowry and other matters, but I do not wish to discuss those matters now. However, I want the hon. Member for Hillsborough to acknowledge that investment has increased mightily in the past few years, and that investment is dramatically greater than profits. I am willing to debate the other arguments.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that hon. Members representing Devon and Cornwall constituencies very much welcome what he has said about the problem in the south-west. Does he agree that another advantage of privatisation is that it has enabled the privatised water companies to invest and lend their skill to water developments throughout the world, which is greatly to the benefit of this country's balance of payments and reputation throughout the world?

Mr.Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made a serious and important argument. Anyone who reads Water Bulletin will be aware of some of the spread of our expertise and talent. The privatised water companies are also bringing into this country other people who have an interest in showing that their techniques can be used here.
May I briefly say how much I welcome the number of people who contribute to Water Aid, whereby the water industry uses the voluntary giving of many of its customers to help extend the use of water throughout the world? The idea that water is a free good will come as a surprise to the people in KwaZulu/Natal, where people, mainly women, have to carry water large distances. I pay tribute to companies such as the Umgeni Water Company, which, through what is called reticulation—getting the pipes through—will bring water to 175,000 more people a year each year for the next five years.
We should pay some attention to the life cycle approach to water usage, which is why, in the case of larger houses, I do not think that it is necessarily right simply to use rateable value or some proxy for it; but that is a matter of detail. It is not my role, or that of anyone in the House, to defend the water regulator, but I think that it is right that he has encouraged open discussion, debate and argument. I pay tribute to the way in which he has done that. By taking a pretty firm economist's view to water, he is doing a service. I do not think that he got his K factors that far wrong. I am glad that they are smaller now than they were.
I wish to make two final arguments. I want to break an official secret—or rather, as I am not a civil servant, commit a ministerial indiscretion. I once sat with half the Cabinet and various other junior Ministers, trying to discuss the pension arrangements of the deputy chairman of Thames Water, and after about an hour and a quarter, we had not reached a decision. That is not a job for Ministers. Ministers should stay away from that type of decision. If the Labour party wants to go back to it, it only needs to read the diaries of former Labour Cabinet Ministers to discover how incompetent politicians are when they start becoming involved in that level of detail.
I hope that all the water companies will take it as their responsibility to continue reducing the number of disconnections. I hope that, in their statistics, they will distinguish between the people who are "won't-payers" rather than "can't-payers" and show that they do want to become involved with the "can't-payers" as soon as possible to reach agreements about debt management and continuation of water supply. That is important.
I challenge the legislative requirement that a water company must take someone who has not paid their account to court before being able to use the disconnection process. I have not read any analysis of the way in which the ordinary consumer who cannot pay gains by that process. If that process means an extra £30 or £60 on the bill because a court order has been obtained, how does that help? If analysis had shown that half the, poor customers were told by the court that they did not have to pay and they would not be disconnected, there might be a purpose in requiring the court application. However, at the moment it is one of those silly ideas, designed to help the poor, which in fact penalises them.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The privatisation process threw a sharp spotlight on the role of the regulator and of the Government; on the role of Government, because the Government, in disentangling themselves from the water industry, had to show that the new privatised industry and the regulatory system could deliver to consumers a fair and affordable deal; and on the role of the regulator, because it remained to be seen whether it would ensure that that process took place effectively and efficiently.
In my opinion, the record of what has happened since then has cast a pretty poor light on both. Regulation has failed on several counts. I shall highlight a few of those.
First, directors have had excessive pay increases, and there has been excessive shareholder profit. Notwithstanding that much of the paper profit goes into investment and cleaning up, the excessive profit to shareholders reflected in the share price and dividends appears inexplicable, in view of the role that the regulator is meant to take.
In a monopoly industry, in which there is effectively no real risk, in which there is no chance of losing customers—indeed, the customer base is increasing, if anything, as a result of greater industrial use, greater consumer use and greater numbers of households—there is no reason why the returns of directors of the privatised industry had to be so much greater than those that the same people, in most cases, received when it was a state industry. The fact that that happened places a major

question mark over the way in which the regulatory system was set up, or the way in which the regulator operates it.
Above all, I believe that, in an industry in which there is no real risk for shareholders, the rates of return that shareholders have received have been unacceptable. That has been shown to be the case with the increases that have taken place in the value of those shares. If the industry had been priced and regulated correctly, that process would not have gone on.
On the K factor and decisions that the regulator has taken about that, we have to ask whether it has been tough enough, given that share prices have increased after the regulator's announcements about the K factor, in the first round across the board for the water companies, including those water companies that have been most heavily hit by new requirements to clean up the sewage problems.
After the K factor was announced, those people who were confronted with the highest costs nevertheless noticed increases in share prices in the local water company. That happened again in the latest round, with the one exception of South West Water Services Ltd., about which an appeal is under way; we do not know what the final settlement will be. That rate of increase in the share prices since privatisation casts a severe doubt on the effectiveness of the regulator.
One final aspect in which I believe there has been clear unacceptable practice is in the diversification of the water companies into sectors not connected with their core business and with very different risk levels. Indeed, I would question whether, in the rules affecting directors, some of those decisions were acceptable on a purely commercial basis, let alone in the regulatory structure and the intentions of Government.
The best example of that is the speculative investment in a bid for West Country Television by South West Water Services. It paid off, because it won the bid. Had it not won it, however, that would have been throwing money away. It would have been throwing water customers' money away. I do not believe that a water company has a legitimate role investing in a speculative bid for a television company.
One problem which the regulator has failed to tackle and which has a direct impact on customers' bills is the difficulty of obtaining the right mix between raising capital and relying on profit to fund the capital investment. Water prices could have been significantly lower had the regulator chosen the capital option rather than taxing the customer for that investment. I do not believe that the decision taken would have been made in any business other than one with a monopoly. Why did not the regulator take stronger action? Why have not Ministers had a greater involvement?
The other area where the regulator has failed is more significant. The regulator has failed in his duty to ensure that all customers receive a reasonable deal, even within the same water district. I shall come to the particular problems of some districts later. We are now seeing a process of so-called rebalancing between customers that benefits the large industrial users at the expense of the domestic users.
As a result, the promise to hold down price increases this year has not been matched in individual customers' bills. The so-called re-balancing has cut the cost to the


major industrial user at the expense of the domestic user. That is not right within the terms originally laid out for the regulator to ensure fair treatment between customers.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that he was taking an economist's approach. Perhaps he was, but I do not think that he was taking a proper approach in terms of what Parliament intended. Ian Byatt states:
Where, however, supplying water to a particular customer can be demonstrated to cost less, for example, where the customer provides their own on-site storage, then Ofwat would expect to see the introduction of different tariffs. We would want to see these tariffs published and made available to all customers in similar positions, rather than established by special agreements.
We must recognise that such a policy opens the way for differentiation between different domestic customers within one water company area. It opens the way for major housing authorities such as Plymouth city council in my region to put forward the basis of a contract with South West Water and say, "We have a large number of households which are cheap to supply, and we want to take advantage of those lower costs to deliver water more cheaply to our tenants."
That is now a possibility, and it appears from everything that the regulator has said that he regards it as acceptable. Those who represent rural areas where the costs are high regard such a policy as a threat. The regulator has done nothing to rule out that possibility. The regulatory system, and the fact that the regulator gives the matter an economic emphasis rather than a customer-based emphasis, makes it possible for rural customers to be hit hard.
The biggest problem with the regulatory system is that it cannot deliver a solution to the biggest problem, which hits my constituents and may yet hit others. Where a water area has particularly high costs, the bills of people living within it rise to a rate that they cannot afford. In the south-west water area, many bills are more than £600. Such bills often affect elderly people in rural areas, who have notionally expensive properties, but little income, and who cannot afford the bills. I am not talking simply about holding down price increases: such people cannot afford their present bills.
The regulator is unable to tackle the problem, because he is unable to create a fair system of payment across the country to meet the cost of the national clean-up system. I have spoken about that problem before in this place, so I shall not do so now.
That problem can be tackled only by Ministers—it falls to them to do so. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), will say today whether it is true that the Department of the Environment made a bid to the Treasury for funding to meet the problem. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is true that the Department of the Environment recognised the problem, but the Treasury said no. My constituents and those throughout the south-west want to know from where the money will come.
Those hon. Members who think that they have avoided the problem because they do not represent the south-west may find that, the next time that the regulations change, their areas will be hit. Those in East Anglia may be hit by regulations affecting water quality and the cost of

tackling farm run-off. We do not know where the problem will strike and we cannot expect customers to carry the burden.
In the past few weeks, Ministers have been directly responsible—an announcement was made just before Easter—for writing off one potential solution. If they will not invest more money, I must ask them to reconsider the problem. By announcing that they will stick with the old, outdated water rate system and allow water companies to continue with it, Ministers have refused one potential solution that might have helped solve the problem.
The old water rate system is out of date; the valuations cannot possibly be justified any longer. That was the justification for the introduction of the poll tax a long time ago, so we can imagine what the position is in 1995. Those out-of-date valuations are, in themselves, unfair, but they bring with them a system that allows no relief for those on low incomes and for those living alone. If we cannot help those living on low incomes and those living alone in regions such as the south-west, which has been hit by high charges, some people will be unable to pay their bills.
If we are not going to equalise the costs of the clean-up across the country, if we are not going to do something about the green dowry and look again at those problems, we must try to help those on the lowest incomes who are hardest hit by high bills. That point is made by the South West Water customers committees, citizens advice bureaux and many organisations that have to deal with people on the receiving end of the problem. That argument is even backed by the water companies, which say that the problem must be tackled.
While the problem is not tackled, and while Ministers allow old systems to exist that are inappropriate to the present position, pensioners will continue to struggle to pay bills that they cannot afford—it is not a political matter: the pensioners literally cannot afford to pay the bills. They receive state pensions, but are ineligible for help towards paying bills of £600 or £700. The only solution to that problem would be the introduction of a new water Bill in this place. We cannot look to the regulator to meet the crisis.

Mr. David Harris: The interesting feature of the debate has been the consensus across the Chamber. Much has been said by Opposition Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), with which I would not disagree, especially his concluding remarks. There is also, perhaps, a hidden consensus. That consensus may be shattered by the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but as I understand it, whether or not they liked it when privatisation was introduced, all parties in the House now recognise that privatisation is here to stay.
I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on securing the debate, on the interest that she has taken in the subject and on her speech today. She made a moderate speech, but although she hankered back to nationalisation, and half seemed to suggest renationalisation, I know that that will not happen. Were the Labour party to gain office, it would not advocate that policy. I do not think that the Liberal Democrats are advocating it—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Truro is nodding in agreement.
The question is how to regulate the industry, and I am delighted that that is the focus of the debate. Regulation is essential, partly for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Truro. He was absolutely right to say that some of his constituents and some of the constituents of every south-west Member of Parliament cannot afford the increases that they have had to suffer—that is the right word—in recent years.
We can consider why those increases have occurred. Undoubtedly, the increases were partly due to the extra requirements placed on South West Water following privatisation.
We all agree that a very extensive capital programme should be put in place in the south-west. However, the extra requirements which have been applied, with good reason, to South West Water—partly by Europe and partly by the Government—have involved costs which were not taken into account when the green diary was fixed. The green dowry, which allocated some £260 million to South West Water, was simply not large enough, given the eventual scale and cost of its capital programme. That is the essence of the difficulty we face, and I am sorry that, even now, we do not have a proper solution to that problem.
Hon. Members from all parties who have constituencies in the south-west have badgered the Government, from the Prime Minister down, about the problem. We will continue to badger them until we see a satisfactory solution. Despite the harsh criticisms that have been expressed in the debate, I believe that a vital ally in the battle is the Director general of Water Services, Mr. Byatt. I do not know of a single Member of Parliament from the south-west who has not supported his action in setting the K limit for South West Water which will put a stop to the horrendous price increases, even though it will not tackle the differential that has built up already.
We all support him in his efforts, and many of us have made it known to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that we support the regulator in the appeal by South West Water against his determination of the K factor limit and the limitation on factor price increases. I believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission must back the consumers of the south-west by rejecting South West Water's appeal.
The director general has shown that he has teeth, and he has used his powers properly in trying to limit price increases. South West Water should respond to the challenge of the new limits, as I do not believe that its case for future price increases stands up.
The South West Water top brass have done enormous damage—as have most privatised industries—by awarding themselves huge salary increases. Clearly, even if those increases had been halved or quartered, and even if the industry had set the kind of limits that we in the House have applied to our salaries, it would not have made a difference to the size of the water bills. However, the psychology involved is extremely important. Our constituents feel extremely angry when they weigh those salary increases against the percentage rise in their water bills.
I am pushed for time in the debate, and I know that Front-Bench Members wish to speak. In conclusion, I believe that the regulator has done a good job—I do not share the criticisms that other hon. Members have voiced

in the debate. I think that the regulator deserves our thanks, and I hope that he succeeds in his efforts on behalf of the hard-pressed consumers of South West Water.

Mr. Richard Burden: Before the recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and I raised some issues in an Adjournment debate which are extremely relevant to the debate this morning. Before Easter, we complained about the fact that a written parliamentary answer made a potentially fundamental statement about future charging mechanisms for water. That issue is a continuing cause of major public concern, and it is why regulation of the water industry is extremely important to many people up and down the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, regardless of who may technically control the water industry, the resource is owned by the public. Despite the fact that the public are very concerned about water metering and that there are major doubts as to whether it makes sense environmentally, logically or in terms of cost and equity, one man—the water regulator, Mr. Ian Byatt—has committed himself to the expansion of metering as the norm for water charging.
The Government have concurred with his view, despite the growing public outcry and despite the industry's reservations. The clear message in the Government's written answer is that water metering will become the charging norm, even though rateable values will be allowed to be used beyond the year 2000.
That is why we must examine the whole system of water regulation. We must decide whether vesting power in a regulator is synonymous with effective regulation. I do not wish to knock Ofwat employees; a great many very good and committed people work for that organisation, and they have performed some very effective work since privatisation. However, there have been major problems with the way in which the regulator has operated with regard to the issue of water charging systems and pricing.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to the investment programme. Whenever I speak about water, it is my aim to conclude my remarks without referring to the financial system that was set up at the time of privatisation, but that matter must be addressed.
When water was transferred technically into the private sector, it was treated like no other private sector industry: it was guaranteed a monopoly market, it was awarded a gift of £1 billion, and its debts were written off at a stroke. However, when the industry was in the public sector, it was told that it had to pay off its inherited debts, which led to a lack of investment in the industry in the last few years before privatisation, and to subsequent price increases.
The rules suddenly changed when privatisation occurred. Recent statements about the K factor have made the situation a little clearer with regard to the financial featherbedding of the industry upon privatisation, but it has not been sorted out. That underlines the need for a more democratic element in our regulatory system.
Much concern has been expressed up and down the country about the balance between the core business and the enterprise companies within the water industry. I am


not opposed to the water companies engaging in enterprise activities, but they should provide a service to the core business, not the other way around.
Time is short, so I shall conclude with some ideas about how to secure more effective regulation in the future. We need effective economic regulation of the industry in the areas of price and investment. Those issues must be treated much more democratically than has occurred in the past. The industry must be accountable, and it needs to link more successfully with other agencies.
The benefits system must mirror the real needs of people on low incomes. There must be effective environmental regulation of the industry, and hopefully the forthcoming Bill will make a start in that regard. There must be a much more effective consumer voice, and a separation of that voice from the official Ofwat structure.
In bringing the water industry to more democratic accountability, we do not intend to shackle management or to take away from professionals the tasks that they perform best. We are simply saying that, regardless of ownership, the water industry provides a public service, and it must be run in a way that is accountable to the public and in a way that recognises their economic, social and environmental needs.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on pushing for this debate on a subject which she has pursued vigorously and considerably. The role of the regulator in the water industry is probably more important than in any other privatised industry. Water is an absolute monopoly, and we do not have the choices in water supply which we have in electricity, gas and telephones. It is also an essential service, on which we all depend.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a point about investment, and we must welcome the way in which he approached the matter. I hope that the Government and the regulator take a similar approach. It is wrong that so much long-term capital expenditure is funded from revenue. When hon. Members met the Water Services Association recently, we heard that 80 per cent of long-term capital investment is made from revenue. That is totally wrong, and I hope that the Minister will change that.
On the subject of water metering, it is surprising that it was not the regulator Mr. Byatt—who says he is neutral on the subject, although everyone knows that he is committed to metering—who issued a warning when the Secretary of State made his announcement earlier this month about relying on rateable values until metering could be introduced in the longer term.
It was the Water Services Association and the Water Companies Association jointly which warned against compulsory metering. They said:
They hope this doesn't mean the thin end of the wedge towards universal compulsory metering for all domestic customers. We would certainly fight that on behalf of our customers very hard.
It should be the regulator who is doing that, not the industry; I wlecome what the companies are doing.
A survey of Members of Parliament was carried out by Access Opinions on the role of the regulators and executive pay. In response to a question on the regulators of privatised utilities needing
to strike a balance between the interests of shareholders, customers and staff',
90 per cent. of Members thought that customers were the most important. Even among Conservative Members, that figure was 82 per cent, while 98 per cent. of Labour Members said consumers. In response to a question asking whether Members believed that Ofwat was adequately protecting the needs of consumers, 36 per cent. thought Ofwat's response was inadequate, 19 per cent. thought it was very inadequate, and 6 per cent. had no opinion.
When the same question was asked about shareholders, the answers went the opposite way, with 58 per cent. answering that they thought Ofwat dealt with shareholders adequately, and 26 per cent. answering "very adequately".
I wish to refer the north-west customer services committee of Ofwat, which tends to do good job. It has limited resources, and I would like to see those resources increased. Mr. Anthony Goldstone, the committee chairman, refereed to disconnections, and said:
One disconnection is one too many".
The regulator and the Government must address that matter. I would suggest time that Ministers ought to discuss the matter with the Department of Social Security to try to come to an arrangement.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend and Front-Bench Members may like to know that members of the all-party group went to see the Minister for Social Security, and we are hopefully making some progress on that matter.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, and there may be an opportunity for liaison on deductions from income support. I believe that that would help that problem.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), not only on securing this debate, but on her outstanding contribution during the past few years in ensuring that proper scrutiny is made of this subject through her activities in the all-party group.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) spoke of the "enormous consensus" in the House on the issue, but I am sure that he would expect me to take some exception to that. Some historic facts make it impossible for there to be consensus, a major one of which is that Conservative Members voted for privatisation and—by association—for the regime under which so many people are suffering. Opposition Members voted against it, which means that there can be no consensus.
We are in disagreement about what has been done to the industry, and the people we represent are on our side of the argument. We have the overwhelming support of the British people, which Conservative Members chose to ignore. Now—when they are facing the electoral consequences—it is a little late to bleat about the "enormous consensus".
I approach the subject from the regulatory side of the argument, and I also speak with slight trepidation, as a Member representing a Scottish constituency in what has


clearly so far been an English and Welsh debate. That is because we in Scotland succeeded—where, I suggest, the hon. Member for St. Ives and others may now regret that they failed—in stopping the Scottish water industry being privatised.
Unfortunately, the industry will—for a brief period—be under the control of quangos. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) rather eccentrically described members of quangos as "people put there on the basis of merit". That is a new description. The Scottish industry will be in the control of quangos for a short term, until it returns to full local authority control.
Unfortunately, we have not had the same success in England and Wales, and we must now try to improve the regulatory system to make it work—as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said—on behalf of the consumers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough asked whether the Government or the regulator was responsible for what is going on, but I think that it is two sides of the same coin. The regulators are not mystical people dropped from heaven into their positions, but people appointed by the Government to do the work of the Government and to pursue the policies which are inherent in the privatisation programme. In general, that is what the regulators have done, and that is why we are determined that there must be a complete overhaul of the regulatory system, particularly with regard to accountability.
The regulator has allowed massive price increases for consumers in England and Wales, and he is not acting on their behalf. He is, instead, pursuing the policies and logic of the Government. The electorate make no distinction between the Government and the regulator in this area, and they hold the Government and the Tory party responsible for what has happened to water prices over the past few years.
The true scandal was neatly summarised in a recent article in the Financial Times, which gave a recent history of the water industry. The article said:
The water companies were sold initially for £6.5 billion, with more than £5 billion of debt written off by the government. Yesterday. their market value was more than £12 billion, and shareholders have received more than £2 billion in dividends since privatisation.
Customers, meanwhile, have faced large increases in their water bills, to pay for improvements in water quality, better sewage treatment and cleaning up beaches and rivers. On average, household bills have risen more than 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation for every year since privatisation.
On the basis of that potted history, there can be no consensus. It is an absolute scandal which is increasingly being hung around the necks of the people who voted for privatisation in the first place.
The Times summed it up in these terms:
While customers squealed, shareholders were laughing.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Hear, hear.

Mr.Wilson: That may be the epitaph on the grave of the Tory Government, and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) says, "Hear, hear."
The article continued:
By 1993, Northumbrian was making operating profits of £69.7 million on turnover of £239 million. One pound of profit in every four was being doled out to shareholders. The rest was rapidly inflating the value of their company. A similar pattern could be seen elsewhere.

I can assure that hon. Member for St. Ives that there is no consensus on that, either.
Recently, there was a flurry of activity, with a more stringent pricing regime due to come in on 1 April. North West Water suddenly discovered that it had £180 million to distribute to customers and shareholders over the next five years. Immediately, the loyal Mr. Byatt came to the company's aid, and declared that companies
which share the efficiencies made in their investment programmes will face less demanding price controls in future reviews.
That was a quote from the Financial Times.
On that point, Kevin Lapwood of Smith NewCourt declared that Ian Byatt's declaration
has unshackled the sector … Investors and the companies have been worried about how they could get the benefits of better financial performance out to shareholders after the electricity experience. They can now promise substantially better than expected dividend growth with the regulator's approval.
The sinners among Conservative Members who have repented and who claim to be enormously worried, but say that the new pricing regime will see things all right and that Mr. Byatt is doing a tremendously good job, are being a little over-optimistic.
Disconnections are an evil, wicked and totally unnecessary act. To leave people without water in their homes is not something for which any civilised society should be responsible. Scotland is not the wealthiest part of the United Kingdom. People there living in poverty have difficulty meeting their water bills, yet it is legally impossible for anyone's water supply in Scotland to be disconnected. Somehow, the system has managed to survive a century and more. If that can happen in Scotland, it can happen in the rest of the UK. Disconnections should be made illegal.
If any Conservative Member seeking consensus or the Minister can stand up and make a moral case for disconnection, I would be interested to hear it. There is no need for disconnections. There are other means of recovery. The marginal loss sustained by non-recovery is one that the water industry can well bear.
The idea of companies for which Conservative Members are mouthpieces indiscriminately denying water to homes occupied by the elderly, small children or the sick strikes me as completely unacceptable in a civilised society. That does not happen in Scotland, and it should not legally be done in England. Why does not one Conservative Member have the guts to say that disconnections should not be legal in England and Wales?
Metering is only another form of disconnection, because if people do not have money to put in the meter, water companies do not even have to dirty their hands physically disconnecting water supplies. Metering is another assault on the poor, leading to further hardship and misery for people who cannot afford the excessive charges caused by privatisation and the lax regulatory regime, for which every Conservative Member voted. There is no consensus. The whole thing is a scandal and a scam, and one reason that the Tories will be finally judged next month, and then in a general election.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): This has been an interesting and broad debate. My difficulty is to answer in seven minutes many of the points that were made.
I was intrigued by some made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and it was also interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) joined the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in leaning on South West Water. I am sure the company will note that with some concern.
The most interesting contribution was that of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), which re-emphasised Labour's preoccupation with regulation to the point of strangulation—which is what we shall be in for if the electorate ever make the mistake of allowing Labour back in.
Privatisation has succeeded in its main objectives of allowing the water industry access to private finance and to enable a much higher level of investment than was possible—as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept—when the industry was in the public sector and subject to public expenditure restraints. Privatisation has removed the water industry's dependence on the Exchequer, and it has enabled a much increased investment programme of around £3 billion each year since 1989, dramatically to improve drinking water quality and the water environment, as well as allowing the renewal and necessary maintenance of infrastructure.
In England and Wales, in 1993, 99 per cent. of 3.5 million tests met drinking water quality standards, and between 1990 and 1993 there was a net upgrading in quality of nearly 16 per cent. of river length—the proportion of rivers in the highest-quality class increased and the proportion in the lower classes dramatically reduced. The percentage of the population at risk of water shortages, hosepipe bans and low pressure have all been dramatically reduced.
Since 1990–91—the first full year of privatisation—the water industry has invested about £15 billion. The new price limits set by the Director General of Water Services last summer allow for a further £24 billion capital expenditure programme over the next 10 years—£11 billion for quality improvements, £12 billion for maintenance of assets and £1 billion for additional water resources and measures to reduce the risk of flooding from sewers.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I decline, but I have only five and a half minutes left in which to reply.
That large-scale investment programme is necessary to make good the years of under-investment before privatisation—we heard the dramatic example from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham of the sewage build-up in one Government office. The industry is now engaged on nothing less than a massive modernisation of the water and sewerage infrastructure, which will ensure that it complies with much higher European and national standards. The same level of investment would have been required had the industry remained in the public sector, but without the availability of private sector finance.
Much has been made of charges. Improvements in water and sewerage services and in the environment are not cost-free—somebody must pay. Charges have had to rise to help pay for investment, but the rate of increase in

charges is much less than in previous years, and for the next five years will be significantly below the increase originally set at the time of privatisation. In his first periodic review of water price limits last summer, the director general set new, tighter limits to apply to charge increases from 1 April this year and for subsequent years.
The periodic review was the regulator's first opportunity to make a fundamental review of companies' costs and efficiency, and to address issues such as the cost of capital. He decided that companies would now be expected to make a lower rate of return on investment and to reduce their costs through greater efficiency. As a result, he was able to reduce price rises over the next five years from the average of 4 per cent. a year in real terms set in 1989 to an average of 1.5 per cent.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: I have only three and a half minutes left.
In the full 10–year period from 1995 to 2005 covered by the director general's review, the average increase in charges is limited to less than 1 per cent. a year. Within those average figures, there are, of course, differential rates of price increase for different companies and for different groups of customers, to reflect the cost of the services provided. The price limit that the regulator sets each company applies to the average increase in tariffs.
Despite claims of a perceived growth in water debt and disconnections, they fell by 12 per cent. in 1992–93, by 33 per cent. in 1993–94 and by a further 7 per cent. in the first six months of the following year. Of the 2 million households identified by the Policy Studies Institute report as experiencing water debt last year, fewer than 0.6 per cent. experienced disconnection.
That can normally only take place after a length procedure, in which the water company has obtained a county court judgment that remains unpaid. The power to disconnect supply for non-payment of charges must remain as a last resort, particularly in respect of people who can pay but will not pay. We are not talking of the individuals who were so dramatically portrayed earlier.

Mr.Wilson: How does the Minister distinguish?

Sir Paul Beresford: It is for the courts to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently made a policy statement about the basis of charging for water in England and Wales. The Government believe that, in the long term, metering is the best basis for paying for water in many circumstances. It is fair and equitable, in that it relates charges directly to the amount of water used and gives customers some control over their bills.
Payment by amount used encourages customers to use only the water they need which, particularly in dry areas, and it is important in developing patterns of water use that are sustainable in the longer term. With lower consumption, the need for costly capital schemes to develop new water resources may be deferred or avoided. Metering also helps in the detection and control of leakage from the distribution system, so it can play an important role in water conservation.
It is with regret that I recognise that I shall have to answer specific questions by writing to individual Members.
Contrary to the impression that Opposition Members have attempted to give, the privatisation of the water industry and the system of regulation that we have established have been both successful and effective. These developments have enabled a huge programme of capital investment to take place. They have brought improvements in water treatment, sewerage and sewage treatment.
As a result, we are achieving higher standards of drinking water quality, as well as higher standards in the water environment. The regulator has ensured that the rate of increase in charges will be much less than in previous years, while the levels of service provided by the water companies will continue, as over the past few years, dramatically to improve. The companies are becoming more efficient. Some of them are already announcing rebates and reductions in customers' bills. These are all developments to be welcomed and encouraged.

Euthanasia

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have initiated this timely debate because I fear that two fundamental principles are being undermined, which the House must take the earliest opportunity to reinforce.
First, the House is surely the guardian of the rights of the individual citizen. It is the protector of the vulnerable, of the weak and of those who are unable to speak for themselves. It is here and nowhere else that laws upholding that principle should be decided.
Secondly, since the time of Hippocrates, patients have been able to look to their doctors to uphold the highest ethical standards; to do all within their power to protect the patient's health and well-being and never to take steps either of commission or of omission to harm patients, let alone intentionally to bring about their death.
The two basic principles that I have outlined are now under threat. I believe that the primacy of this place is being challenged and that the special relationship between doctor and patient, and the wider contract between individuals and society as a whole, is in desperate jeopardy. The threat to both principles is posed by the co-ordinated thrust being made to bring about the decriminalisation of euthanasia.
It is clear from the attendance in the Chamber that many hon. Members on both sides and in all parties share what I can describe only as my profound concern about recent developments. I have no doubt that many of them will seek to take this opportunity to put on record the reasons for their concern.
I am especially delighted to see in her place the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I am also delighted to see that a long-serving member of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), is in her place. Also present is another long-serving member of the Select Committee and its predecessor Committees, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). The hon. Gentleman has served with me on the Select Committee and its predecessor Committees for many years. I see also in his place a Member who led the Select Committee on Social Services with great distinction, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I know that he feels as strongly as I do on this subject.
I shall take the opportunity to explain why I and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of those who have considered these issues carefully, have reached the inescapable conclusion that the decriminalisation of euthanasia is as unnecessary as it is unethical and repugnant.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument that euthanasia is, in the end, the killing of people? That is against God's law. I recognise how hard it must be at times for individuals to deal with these matters, but we must all die in God's time, not in man's time. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Winterton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's views. Euthanasia is against God's law and against the law of the United Kingdom. The law says that it is wrong intentionally to kill a person. I fully support my hon. Friend's views.
The Law Commission recently produced a report on mental incapacity, which dealt with the issues that I have raised. It is being considered by an interdepartmental working party established by the Lord Chancellor. Earlier this month the British Medical Association published a document entitled "Advance Statements about Medical Treatment". In my view, parts of that document do not reflect the views of the majority of doctors. If those parts are taken with the sections of the Law Commission's report which call for legally binding living wills, the door to euthanasia could be opened wide.

Mr. Peter Luff: Is my hon. Friend aware that his contention that the majority of doctors may not support the BMA's recent document is borne out by a letter that I received from two doctors at the Worcester Royal Infirmary Trust, who expressed strong reservations about the BMA's recent document? They told me that, at a meeting on 10 April, those reservations were widely shared. The two doctors are concerned about the attempt to introduce euthanasia through the back door without the sanction of Parliament.

Mr.Winterton: I can only say that the views expressed to my hon. Friend by doctors in his constituency reflect the views expressed to me by doctors in my constituency and elsewhere. It is worth mentioning that the working party set up by the BMA, which has produced rules and guidelines, does not, I believe, represent the policy of the BMA as a whole. It is also worth noting that only five of the 16 members of the steering committee or working party are doctors. The steering committee was composed mainly of lawyers and, dare I say it, ethical advisers.
It is time that the House pointed out a few basic and inescapable facts to that small, unrepresentative and essentially unaccountable clique of lawyers and doctors and reminded them that any move towards euthanasia has been made redundant by our world-leading pioneering of the hospice movement, with which I am proud to be involved in my capacity as a vice-president of the East Cheshire hospice in Macclesfield, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—I am delighted to note that she has just taken her place—and I jointly opened in the presence of the Lord Bishop of Chester, Michael Baughen. Any move towards euthanasia has also been made redundant by tremendous developments in palliative medicine, and great strides in geriatric services.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take a lesson from what has happened in Holland? If we take one step down this road, there is no stopping the rush to euthanasia. We must be warned by Holland's example.

Mr. Winterton: The House should note carefully what my hon. Friend has said. She is a long-serving Member. I intend to take up the example of the Netherlands. We must be careful before any decisions are taken to move down the path to any form of euthanasia.
I remind those doctors and lawyers and their allies in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society that the prohibition of intentional killing is the very cornerstone of our civilised society and of our law. The role of the doctor is to cure and, if that is not possible, to care for his patients. To permit doctors intentionally to kill would be a dramatic

change which I believe—I think that my views are widely shared—would discredit the medical profession and undermine the fabric of our society.
No one is saying that the medical profession should strive at all costs, even officiously, to keep alive patients who are dying. Nor is anyone saying that drugs such as painkillers should not be prescribed if one of their side effects is to hasten death, provided that the doctor's motive is pain relief and not the death of the patient.
Those are delicate and difficult issues, which the BMA and the Law Commission have failed fully to understand and on which in their reports they have badly let down not only their own professional, medical and legal communities but society as a whole. If euthanasia were to be decriminalised, the elderly, the infirm and the chronically. sick would immediately be under both real and perceived pressure to request it to end what is portrayed as the burden that they place on the shoulders of relatives and society as a whole.
What starts as voluntary euthanasia would rapidly become encouraged euthanasia, which would then become pressurised euthanasia and then, inevitably, compulsory euthanasia. I will hear no calls in the House today of "death with dignity" or of a "blessed relief from an existence of unbearable pain." Outstanding advances in symptom control and pain relief enable hospice doctors and others to relieve pain in the overwhelming majority of cases.
What the disorientated elderly require is love. How often is that word used in the Chamber? They want compassion. They want understanding. They want support. They do not want death. What the incurable cancer sufferer needs is nursing care, pain relief and, what is more, emotional relief and help with an uncertain but approaching death, and the impact that it will have on loved ones. What the AIDS victim needs is medical care, nursing care, psychological care, and to spend the last of his or her days in the warmth of Christian compassion. What all those groups and many more require is not the indignity of death at the hands of their doctors, but the knowledge that, until the moment of their natural death, they remain valued members of society—loved, cared for and respected for their inherent individual worth.
The heroes and heroines who care for the incurably ill, the psychogeriatric and the severely handicapped in our society today, are legion. We all know that fact as Members of Parliament. They are too numerous to list, but they include all those involved in the hospice movement, those who provide hospice care at home, the Macmillan nurses, the members of the British Geriatric Association, which has been so supportive of what I am seeking to achieve today, and the tens of thousands of doctors and nurses who daily dedicate their lives to care, in their commitment to those who are suffering from terminal or aging illnesses. I put a rhetorical question to the House: does the commitment of those professional caring people count for nothing? Are we to go down the path to mercy killing, as it has come to be known?
It might be helpful if I remind the House that parliamentary concern on these matters led to the establishment in another place of a Select Committee on Medical Ethics to consider the very matters that we are debating today. The appointment of Lord Walton to the chairmanship of that Committee—an individual who was already openly associated with campaigns to promote euthanasia—as well as other members, such as Baroness
Warnock, who were already publicly on record as supporters of euthanasia, did little to inspire confidence in the Committee's impartiality. Indeed, the majority of its members were believed to be supporters of a liberalising of the law in this area.
Yet, after 12 months of hearing expert evidence, and deliberating carefully on these important issues—the Committee had undertaken one of the most thorough and well-researched reports on euthanasia that this country had ever seen—and despite the preconceived ideas of many of its members, I am pleased to tell the House that its report was unanimous in its rejection of euthanasia. I commend it to hon. Members as essential reading for those who would understand these sensitive and difficult issues.
Something must also be said at this stage about the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and the irresponsible and, dare I say it, devious manner in which it has presented and propagated its views. Naturally, as a Member of the House, I would champion the right of the VES and its supporters to air their views, even though personally I fundamentally disagree with them, but it is worth highlighting the fact that the VES regularly quotes a national opinion poll in which it claims that 79 per cent. of people in this country support voluntary euthanasia. If it is not an unparliamentary word—I hope that it is not—I would reject that claim as twaddle, and observe that the claim was heavily criticised by the House of Lords Select Committee and later by an editorial in The Lancet as thoroughly misleading. The question asked was:
Would you like medical assistance to a peaceful death?
I am surprised that 100 per cent. of respondents did not say yes to such a loaded question.
If we want to see where the euthanasia road, which the VES, the Law Commission and the BMA would have us follow, is taking us, I would simply point to the tragic situation that has arisen in the Netherlands. There, literally thousands of patients die every year through the deliberate act or omission of their doctors. It is now accepted that many of those patients have neither requested nor condoned the ending of their lives. That is a fact. That is why we must highlight the dangers of treading the path that leads to euthanasia.
To those who say that euthanasia is practised only at the request of patients in the most serious of cases, I would draw to their attention the revelation in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal that euthanasia has been sanctioned in the Netherlands for patients who simply have the misfortune to suffer from depression, and that doctors in the Netherlands are now admitting to euthanasia of new-born handicapped babies, who could not possibly have requested the ending of their own lives. That is the reality of going down the path to euthanasia.
To those who deny the validity of that comparison or who doubt that the authority of the House is being usurped by the campaigners for euthanasia, I repeat the words of John Oliver of the VES in the February edition of GQ magazine, commenting on his views on changes in the law in an article entitled, "Death on Demand":
I doubt that politicians will have the balls to change it themselves … Instead change will probably come in the form of judicial review, with the law being reshaped in the courts—exactly as it was in Holland in fact.
Let me deal now with the issue of advanced directives, or "living wills" as they are sometimes called. It is, and always has been, good medical practice for doctors to

discuss with their patients the possible outcomes of their condition, the side effects of possible treatments of that condition, and the problems which might be encountered in the future. It is equally good medical practice for the views and opinions of the patient expressed in such discussions to be noted and taken into account by the doctor in the future management of a particular case. To suggest, however, that such opinions should be binding upon the doctor is as much an affront to the doctor's professionalism as it is a denial of proper care to the patient.
It is an approach fraught with desperate dangers. A patient having signed away access to treatments developed at a later date would deny himself or herself, probably unintentionally, the benefits of any progress in medical science. A patient in relatively good health looking forward to a future of uncertainty and eventual dependence on others might be prompted by vanity, pride or concern, among many other understandable emotions, to sign away his or her right to life, without any real knowledge of the emotions that might be felt or would be felt when that stage in the condition was reached.
A patient—this could happen so easily—surrounded by greedy or selfish relatives might feel pressured into signing, quite literally, his own death warrant. The cost pressures of the new nursing and residential care arrangements under the community care programme can only exacerbate those very real dangers which face people and their families today.
As Peter Millard, the Eleanor Peel professor of geriatric medicine at St. George's hospital medical school, in a letter to me welcoming this debate, said:
The major flaw with advance directives is that the concept is based upon single diseases with known outcomes. Whereas medical practice in old age is based on a complex interweave of biological psychological and social factors complicated by multiple pathology. Mismanagement does not necessarily cause death, rather it leads to the bed-bound state. Old people do not want to be a burden and often when sick say they think they would be better off out of it. Advance directives based on oral and written evidence would lead to neglect.
That is what a well-known doctor in geriatric care believes could happen if we trespass down the path to euthanasia and living wills. Is that the situation that the Law Commission and the British Medical Association wish to create?
There are always those, of course, who cite hard cases in support of their arguments. In this debate, the case of Tony Bland, the victim of the Hillsborough disaster, is one such example. It is also a case which many commentators misunderstood by thinking that it was simply a matter of switching off a life support machine. But that was not the case. Tony Bland was not on a life support machine. He was breathing unaided and was certainly not about to die. Furthermore, he never requested euthanasia. The question which the court was asked to decide was whether food and water could be withdrawn from a patient who was neither dying nor in the final stages of a terminal disease.
The Law Lords decided, in their wisdom—wrongly, I believe—that food and water could be so withdrawn without any recourse to Parliament for authority for that ruling. Therefore, Tony Bland was deliberately killed through lack of hydration and nutrition.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Quite apart from the fact that bad law seems to have been made on a single


hard case, there is another angle to this which was not widely explored in the public domain. Tony Bland contracted septicemia earlier on. As the Guild of Catholic Doctors remarked, treatment for that septicemia could have been regarded as over-burdensome. Therefore, this case need never have come to the sort of invidious decisions that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Winterton: I am coming to that very point now. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising it, because it highlights the part of the case that I am seeking to present.
That case causes grave concern. Can we, as a civilised society, sanction the starving to death of a patient? I am not, equally, arguing that Tony Bland's doctors should have officiously striven to keep him alive. It might, in certain circumstances, have been ethical to withdraw treatment for infections which he contracted during the course of his condition, and he might have died as a result of that course of action. But that is not euthanasia: it is a judgment about the extent to which doctors should strive to keep alive, not about whether it could ever be ethical to withhold food and nutrition intentionally to kill the patient.

Mr. Frank Field: Does not the case of Tony Bland illustrate the two sides to the argument? The hon. Member has made a powerful case that we should be mindful of allowing society to slip into a frame of mind in which we dispose of people who are costly or inconvenient to us. But do not the horrors that Tony Bland's parents had to go through illustrate the other side of the argument? If medics treating someone are fearful that they will be reported for having allowed the patient to die, they take the Tony Bland line.
I very much agree with the view of the doctor on the "Today" programme, who was somehow billed as a pro-life doctor—as though all doctors were not pro-life—who said that twice Tony Bland had pneumonia, and twice he should not have been treated, allowing death to take place that way. I agree that we have the worst of all possible outcomes with the court judgment on the Tony Bland case, but surely it illustrates the other side of the picture: we do not want groups of people rushing around hospitals reporting other people because they may have caused someone's death. If that happens, we shall have the Bland episode all over again.

Mr. Winterton: I do not think that any Member of the House could disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I had the honour, pleasure and privilege to meet Tony Bland's parents and one of the doctors treating him after a Granada programme broadcast from Manchester. Following that meeting, I made representations to the Home Secretary about precisely what the law was.
It is not until one is faced with the sort of case to which the hon. Gentleman and I have referred that one understands the great problems. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Tony Bland case does, to an extent, expose both sides of the argument. But what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said was right. Prior to any application being made to the High Court, Tony Bland suffered not only septicemia but a urinary fistula, and if an aggressive treatment had not been adopted to overcome those problems, he would have died naturally.
While I am putting the case against euthanasia, I must also say that I believe that that is what should have happened. There should not have been aggressive treatment to cure that septicemia because, like pneumonia, septicemia is an illness which strikes people in such a condition. It is wrong to use all the technology that medicine now has to keep someone alive in such circumstances.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton: I give way to my hon. and conjugal friend.

Mrs. Winterton: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given way to me and I shall be brief. Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the Tony Bland case shows that where lawyers are involved there are always great problems? The life of Tony Bland was lengthened because of legal interventions. He was not allowed to die naturally with dignity because of the case in which he had been involved, to which the Hillsborough disaster gave rise. Therefore, it was an extraordinary case in its own right and should not be taken literally. Many people got the wrong end of the stick about it.

Mr. Winterton: I can only say, not wishing to protract my speech much longer, that my hon. Friend has made a good point which should be noted by the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: How would the hon. Gentleman extend the argument? If a person who was fully conscious and facing death refused treatment, does the hon. Gentleman think that treatment should be administered without that person's consent?

Mr. Winterton: Personally, I do, because I believe that the decision about treatment should lie with those who are treating the individual. It is a doctor's duty to represent the best health interests of the individual and to ensure their well-being as far as possible.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to say that, in addition to the right to live, which is enshrined in the United Nations charter and in the constitutions of many countries, there is also the equivalent of a right to die. In fact, there is no such right to die. Prior to the Suicide Act 1961, it was illegal for people to commit suicide. Moreover, it is still illegal to assist people in committing suicide; it is criminal to do so, and that is right.
I conclude my introduction to today's debate by reminding the House that such was the strength of opposition to euthanasia that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), whom I am glad to see in his place, withdrew his ten-minute Bill some time ago once he realised how resoundingly it would be defeated, and that instead the House gave leave, without Division, to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to introduce a Bill which would reaffirm our opposition to euthanasia, commend the work of the hospice movement, make clear the circumstances in which food and water could and could not be withdrawn, and thus make it clear that the intentional killing of patients by action or omission is contrary to the will of the House.
Any change in the law must be considered and enacted by Parliament—by this House, and by the House of Lords—rather than being dictated by the courts, the lawyers or even the medical profession. Those who, like


me, care about the sanctity of human life and the dignity of patients stand at an important crossroads. They can accept euthanasia as inevitable—as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and its supporters in the Law Commission and the British Medical Association would have them do or they can join me in rising to the challenge, and drawing a line beyond which we will not allow society to go. Developments in the hospice movement, and in palliative and geriatric medicine, make euthanasia an out-dated and redundant concept that has no place in a civilised and caring society. Now is the time to call a halt to the slide.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is clear that many hon. Members wish to speak. I make a plea for succinct speeches.

12 noon

Mr. Frank Field: I am glad to have been called, and to follow the speech of my hon. Friend—as I shall call him this morning—the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I disagree with none of his substantive points, but I should like to garnish his speech, as it were, with a couple of nuances.
Euthanasia's recruiting sergeant is the simple and awful fact that relatives of many of us and our constituents have died in awful conditions, suffering dreadful pain over long periods. Because the methods of treatment applied in hospices are not universal—and not wanted by some patients—such people will continue to experience agonising deaths, and that will add force to the euthanasia debate. I do not think that we should dispose of that side of the argument.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Has not the medical profession a huge part to play? Should not medical education and training, and the advice available to general practitioners, show the way forward and enable the right care to be provided?

Mr. Field: Indeed. I hope that the Government will accept the truth of that. Lord McColl, who works as a doctor in one of London's hospices, has advanced an effective argument that meets the hon. Lady's point. In the hospice where he works, patients come and go—as they now do in all hospices—and most control their own drug supplies: any patient who wished to commit suicide could easily do so simply by increasing the dosage. Throughout the time during which Lord McColl has worked in that hospice, however, not one has done so, because the hospice has been successful in controlling pain.
Let me sound two notes of caution in regard to the legalisation of euthanasia. First, there is the danger of creating a climate of opinion that will lead initially to the acceptability of euthanasia and a change in the law, and subsequently—a worse development—to a feeling on the part of old people in particular that they have a duty to volunteer. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield pointed out, according to evidence obtained some years ago more than 1,000 people in Holland have been killed without their permission.
In a briefing given to some of us, the Dutch ambassador disputed that evidence. It is possible that he does not understand what is going on in his country as well as

some of those involved in the debate—which underlines the importance of obtaining the most up-to-date and accurate information available.
Some 50 per cent. of the NHS budget is now spent on elderly people, and there will be increasing pressure for its control. It cannot be a fluke that the euthanasia debate has flared up again at a time when most European Governments face rising hospital bills for old people. The argument has an economic dimension. I fear that people may eventually volunteer to be killed because they feel that they are a burden.
Our parents considered it their duty to look after their own parents; now, it is increasingly felt that elderly parents should not live with their offspring. I wonder whether those elderly people are being entirely honest when they say that they prefer independence. Perhaps they feel that they would impose a burden on their families—and, if they already feel that when they are still able-bodied, although needing some care, what must the pressures be in the final years and months of their lives?
My second note of caution concerns "living wills". One of my best friends was known to the country as Barbara Wootton, and known in the other place as Lady Wootton. She was one of the most intelligent people of the century; for most of her life she was an atheist, but—being ultra-rational—as death approached she became agnostic.
When the debate about euthanasia and the role of Exit was last doing the rounds, I visited Barbara at her barn outside Dorking. She told me calmly that she had joined Exit. Shortly before that, a woman had allowed an Exit representative to look after her mother; hearing a loud noise, she had rushed into the room and found a man wearing a woolly hat and eating banana sandwiches while her mother was suffocating, with a plastic bag over her head. The daughter ripped the bag off.
I joked with Barbara, saying, "You cannot be put away by a man in a woolly hat who will eat banana sandwiches and put a bag over your head." Some time later, she said, "I have friends in the Lords who know about these things. They have given me the knock-out pills."
The next stage in this sad tale was when, during my regular Wednesday afternoon tea with Barbara, she said, "Do you know, Frank, last week I heard part of my brain collapse. It was like water moving down past my left ear." It was clear then that, although she was hyper-intelligent, decline had set in.
After one of the summer breaks, Barbara went into a geriatric hospital, where I visited her. For part of the time she was as bright as ever, but, notwithstanding all the care provided by the hospital, she told me, "I am keeping a list in my handbag of the differences between this place and prison, and so far it is not very long." I thought that she would ask me to go to her home and fetch the pills that were there to kill her.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield has described the consequences of such an action; although I disagree personally with suicide, and hope that I would hold to that view, I feel that others should be able to exercise the right. It was noticeable, however, that, however difficult things became for Barbara in those last months of her life, she fought to live with unbelievable determination. She did not ask for the drugs that would have killed her.
I do not suggest that everyone would find himself or herself in the same position, but I do issue a warning about "living wills". Had they been in vogue at that time,


Barbara would certainly have written one. However, when it came to the crunch, when she was not as in control as she had been previously, other forces took control of Barbara and she did not want the end of her life to be brought forward unnaturally. That is my second cautionary tale.
The last point that I wish to make in this important debate again underlines some of the themes adopted by the hon. Member for Macclesfield. One of the gains we want from the debate is not just the learning process but what we hope will be imparted to and induced into the medical profession. The Tony Bland example illustrates the different ways that the debate flows.
We know that euthanasia is practised in this country. Lord Dawson, who was King George V's doctor, said quite openly that he had killed the King. He did so because he was anxious that The Times should carry the story exclusively, rather than it being carried in other newspapers that he thought were a rather minor concern. He felt that something so important should be reported in what he thought to be the premier newspaper. If it is possible in this country for a doctor to do that and quite openly say that he has done that, for no prosecution to follow, and for that to happen in the 1930s, it underlines the important point that, quite clearly, some doctors are perhaps too happy about ending people's lives, whereas other doctors are fearful of doing so.
I hope that this debate does not imply that we are suggesting that people must be kept alive at all costs, whatever that does to them. However, there is a whole process relating to dying well in this country which, because of our hospice movement, sets us apart from most other countries in Europe and, perhaps, the world. We want to draw attention to that and we want to support the hospice movement. We only wish that the Government would be slightly more generous in their allocation of funds to that movement.
We must realise that, in all the key areas of our lives, although it is easy to stand up and say that there are black and white decisions to be made, most of us know that we are in a dreadful grey area.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House today. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health and also of the all-party hospice group, I should like to say that this subject has occupied my mind for some time. It is apparent that, with the continued advance of medical science and the subsequent rise in life expectancy, there is a growing concern among many about the medical treatment and intervention that they would or would not like to receive if they were faced with a degenerative condition or a terminal illness.
That concern has naturally led to further discussion of the practice of euthanasia through the publication of articles and the showing or broadcasting of television and radio programmes. My attention, like that of many others, was drawn to the BBC2 screening of the Dutch television programme "Death on Request". I can tell those hon. Members who were unable to see the programme that the

film's theme was to trace the final months of a Dutch patient who was dying of motor neurone disease and was suffering terribly. His doctor said that there was nothing that he could do for him and that he was likely to suffocate to death. The final stages of the film showed the Dutch doctor administering a lethal injection to his patient.
The debate surrounding the programme was intense, with some describing it as a sensitively created programme, while the review by a senior geriatrician in the British Medical Journal described it as "propaganda". Watching the programme, I was concerned by some of the glaring inaccuracies of the film and even more so by the false impression that the feature created about the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands.
First, the doctor stated clearly in the film that the patient would die of suffocation—a statement which caused considerable concern among motor neurone sufferers in this country. However, having discussed the matter personally with Dr. Nigel Sykes, one of the United Kingdom's leading experts in the care of those dying from motor neurone disease, I understand that, of the 300 motor neurone patients cared for at St. Christopher's hospice, none has died of suffocation.
Secondly, the doctor claimed during the film that where euthanasia was available, patients tended to live longer. However, no evidence was given to support that bold statement. Finally, the film failed to explain why no pain relief was given to the patient and why there were no home nurses or hospice support teams to help the wife.
Of more concern than the inaccuracies was the impression the film gave that the Dutch have effectively legalised euthanasia with no negative side effects, save the trauma of the doctor. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a result, I tabled early-day motion 740, which well over 100 hon. Members kindly supported. It criticised the BBC for failing to give a "complete and balanced" account of euthanasia in the Netherlands. My tabling of the motion caused a particularly strong reaction from the Dutch ambassador. However, the facts should give him some cause for alarm.
I was not the only one to notice the glaring shortcomings of the BBC in showing the programme without adequate prime time for comment and reaction. A letter to The Times the day after the programme was shown, signed by, among others, Dr. Twycross of Oxford university, the Archbishop of York and Lord Walton of Detchant, stated:
having embraced the practice of euthanasia, the Dutch now find themselves on a slippery slope which not only involves euthanasia for those who are not dying but also euthanasia without request".
That was hardly the impression that the programme gave.
The evidence behind such a bold statement in The Times is accurate and conclusive. The Dutch Attorney-General's Remelink report of 1991 stated that, in 1990, in addition to the 2,300 cases of voluntary euthanasia, there were 1,030 deaths from euthanasia without the patient's request.
If further evidence is needed of the slippery slope, it came last year in the Chabot case—in which the Dutch supreme court upheld a Dutch doctor's decision to administer a lethal injection to a woman who was suffering from depression as a result of family difficulties. Johan Legemaate, the legal adviser to the Royal Dutch Medical Association welcomed the "pragmatic decision",


confirming that mental suffering could be the basis for euthanasia. I am sure that many people in the UK, even in the medical profession, are unaware of that alarming development. I note that Dr. Chabot has now been reprimanded by a medical disciplinary board in Amsterdam.
There is further evidence to suggest that the legalisation of euthanasia by the Dutch authorities has had a negative impact on the quality of care available for those suffering from degenerative and terminal conditions. It is common sense to presume that where euthanasia is an option, the incentive to improve services for people who are terminally ill or for further research into pain relief will not be so strong and the resources not so forthcoming. In 1989, a study at the university of Amsterdam of 79 cancer patients showed that only 29 per cent. had been treated appropriately. More than half had been treated inappropriately or not received any treatment at all.
Furthermore, the hospice movement is virtually non-existent in the Netherlands. A recent parliamentary question revealed that it had only five hospices, compared with almost 200 in the United Kingdom. In response, the Dutch state has said that it has a well-developed system of nursing homes, which, indeed, it does. However, I am informed by leading palliative care specialists that they fail to provide palliative care as we know it in this country. The experience of one hospice doctor in the Netherlands recently reported in the Observer would support that.
Dr. Zylicz of the Rozendaal hospice near Arnhem states that he visits patients who want euthanasia because no one has told them how their pain and distress can be alleviated. This is not surprising, because palliative care has yet to be established as a medical discipline in the Netherlands and is not an integral part of medical training. There is much that can be learnt from current practice in the Netherlands. It is evident from the facts that, once euthanasia is legalised, non-voluntary euthanasia will follow and the vulnerable and weak members of society may feel pressurised. Dr. Zylicz claimed that one of his patients went to his hospice while her doctor was away, for the doctor had been putting pressure on her to request euthanasia.
A further point of concern is the manner in which euthanasia has been legalised. Technically it still remains a crime under the criminal code. However, in 1994 an official decree stated that doctors might avoid prosecution if life was actively terminated in a range of circumstances. The Dutch have arrived at the current position through judicial review via a number of difficult court cases. I fear deeply that the same could happen in this country unless Parliament is wise to it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has already stated, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society has gone on record as stating that it expects change, not through Parliament but through judicial review. The decriminalising of intentional killing, regardless of the circumstances for which it was permitted, would be the dismantling of a fundamental principle on which our society and civilised behaviour are based. If such a significant change is to be discussed and considered, then Parliament, not the courts, is the proper arena.
I remain firmly opposed to euthanasia, which I understand to mean intentional killing either by act or omission as part of medical care. I do not believe that we

should keep people alive as long as possible. I feel strongly that there are times when it may be appropriate to withhold or withdraw medical treatment.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the pressures on the medical profession could derive from the Government's collection of statistics, league tables or whatever one likes to call them. There is a danger that there will grow up a premium in the number of deaths that a unit has managed to avoid. Quite a few young doctors in particular already show excessive enthusiasm for trying, for example, to revive patients who have died peacefully and bring them back, often damaged. My hon. Friend, particularly in her role as Chairman of the Select Committee, might like to think about that.

Mrs. Roe: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not on our list of subjects to be examined by the Select Committee at present, but it is surely clear that common sense must prevail. I assume that the medical profession must have a serious role in the matter and give direction from the top of that profession.
Furthermore, I endorse the right of a competent patient to refuse consent to any medical intervention, for whatever reason. In such circumstances, I understand that the doctor must be sure that the patient understands the likely consequences of any such refusal. However, no member of the health care team can overrule such a decision except in certain defined areas of mental illness. I support that. However, the right to refuse medical treatment is very different from the request for euthanasia.
As Lord Walton of Detchant, the Chairman of the Medical Ethics Select Committee in another place, stated in summing up the views of his Committee, there was not sufficient reason to weaken society's regard for intentional killing:
Individual cases cannot reasonably establish the foundation of a policy which would have serious and widespread repercussions".— [Official Report, House of Lords; 9 May 1994, Vol. 554, c. 1346.] 
Lord Walton went on:
our decision was significantly influenced by the outstanding achievement of the palliative care movement in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 9 May 1994, Vol. 554, 1346.]
During the past few years, I have arranged for a number of Members of both Houses to visit hospices in the London area, and many have been surprised by the quality of the medical expertise and the nursing care.
Through research and development, the hospice movement can alleviate pain in 96 per cent. of patients treated and in the remaining 4 per cent. it can be reduced, although perhaps with some difficulty. Although much has been achieved which the Committee commended, there remains much to do, and I draw the Minister's attention to the development at Oxford currently under way the Oxford International Centre for Palliative Care, of which I am a patron. The centre, to be attached to the two universities, will seek to disseminate knowledge on hospice care in this country and abroad. Having secured planning permission and a lease, the centre is raising the necessary £5 million to begin development.
I hope that we as a nation can learn from the current practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. In addition, I hope that every encouragement can be given to the hospice alternative, which has achieved so much since the founding of St. Christopher's in 1967 and which remains a beacon of hope to many.

Ms Liz Lynne: I support the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in this debate. We already have informed consent in Britain. A patient can refuse medical treatment, as has already been said. The doctor has to explain what will happen if that medical treatment is withdrawn. No medical person can overrule that decision. But euthanasia is totally different. It is assistance in dying. That is what I am against.
I can understand people's desire to end the life of a loved one who is suffering. We have probably all been through the dilemma of watching someone we love dying in a tremendous amount of pain. But now 96 per cent. of pain can be alleviated through palliative care. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has just said, the hospice movement has been doing an absolutely wonderful job by the care and love that it gives to patients and to the relatives of patients in dealing with the problems of a loved one dying.
The hospice movement also provides a dignified death and a tremendous amount of joy. I find incredible in hospices the amount of joy in the nurses, the patients and the relatives. It comes from the acceptance of death. The staff help the relatives to accept it and they help the patient to accept it. Patients know that they will have a dignified and peaceful death. Pain relief is essential. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, if delivering that pain relief shortens life, so be it, as long as that is not the reason for doing so.
Palliative care need not be residential—the Macmillan nurses give very good palliative care—but the Government must provide more funding for the hospice movement generally; I ask the Minister to take that on board.
We have such a well-developed hospice movement here compared with other countries such as the Netherlands, where euthanasia is not supposed to be legal but is permitted in certain defined circumstances. Procedures there are supposed to be tightly controlled, but as the Remmelink report stated in 1990, which is some years ago, 1,030 patients who had not requested death had their lives terminated. That is the slippery slope.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne highlighted the case of the 50–year-old woman suffering from mental stress. There was nothing physically wrong with her, but the doctors and lawyers agreed that she could die. That is extremely worrying, especially for elderly, sick and disabled people who will feel that they are under pressure to end their lives.
Now that a person's house can be sold to pay for nursing home care, such people will feel that they are under even more pressure to sell their homes so that their children will inherit something. A minority of unscrupulous relatives will urge them to end their lives. Most relatives are not unscrupulous, but if such a measure passed into law a few would be. People do not like to hear that, but we have to face the facts. The only reason that the majority of people want to end a relative's life is to stop the suffering, but now that more pain relief is available that is not necessary. We must ensure that pain relief is given and that people can end their lives in dignity.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the hon. Member for Macclesfield and to reject any move to legalise euthanasia. I have respect for life and believe that God, and not people, should take that life.
Whether or not people believe, we will be on the slippery slope. However well motivated the calls for voluntary euthanasia, I urge all hon. Members to reject them.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: So far I have heard only one side of the debate. As the House will know, I introduced the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill about two years ago. I must inform the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I did not withdraw it—for certain reasons it was introduced from behind the Chair.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield has adopted a very aggressive style throughout this debate. His speech was mostly based on scaremongering and was an attempt to stifle the debate on this important issue. The House has the right to listen to the other point of view as well. I am fully aware that conservatism, with a small c, dominates this House but the hon. Member has tried to ridicule the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and the opinion polls that have clearly shown that opinion is shifting away from the old attitude that we should not discuss the right to chose to take one's own life when one is suffering from an incurable disease and in awful pain and does not wish to remain in this world.
I must make it clear that I shall be talking only about voluntary euthanasia, with the emphasis on the word "voluntary". It is important to make that distinction, otherwise the debate is confused. I shall emphasise the importance of voluntary euthanasia as the free and willing choice of a competent adult. Modern understanding of voluntary euthanasia is that it should happen when a patient requires medical help to die because he or she is incurably ill, or suffering unbearable distress from his or her condition.
The right to exercise that choice entirely sums up what the voluntary euthanasia movement is about, both in this country and throughout the world. We are not talking about non-voluntary, non-consensual killing of infants, the elderly, the sick or other vulnerable people. Voluntary euthanasia should be one of the choices that is available to people at the end of life.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Khabra: No, not yet
The freedom to choose is one of the fundamental values of a multi-party democracy and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, who were elected through free and democratic choice, will welcome the extension of that choice.
The freedom to choose increases a person's expectation that he or she will have increased autonomy over all aspects of life. It is not flippant to say that, just as people can choose to adopt a life style and not be condemned for it or forced to adopt another style by society, at the end of life people should have the option to choose what is best for them. The increase in the expectation of personal autonomy is one reason why support for voluntary euthanasia has increased to its present level of about 80 per cent. among the general public. The hon. Member for Macclesfield ridiculed that out of all proportion.
The other key element in the increase in support for voluntary euthanasia is the desire to avoid unnecessary suffering. Even in our medically advanced society, it is a sad fact that many people suffer unbearably before death comes as the only release.
I have known two people who have suffered in such a way, and hon. Members should be aware that they suffered because their pain could not be cured. I know one person who died after being bedridden for three years. He suffered awful pain and could not move from his bed and, despite the most modern treatment, he finally could not survive. I used to visit him. He lived in a small town in Kent and had spent his whole life fighting against British imperialism. When he returned to India, he became a very important person and was elected as a member of a state legislature.
When he started to suffer from awful pain, he got the best treatment in India because of his contacts with the medical profession and his political friends. When he could get no relief from the pain, he decided to come to this country. He had the best possible treatment here but could not get rid of his pain. At the age of 92, he told me that he had no wish to live in this world. He said that he had seen the whole world and asked why he could not take his life as he did not want to live. He said that he was not living but was just a cabbage. He could neither move nor talk properly but was mentally alert. He wanted to take his life but was not allowed to take that decision.
Another constituent who has spent nearly 35 years in this country has been in bed for nine years. He cannot sit without assistance, he cannot eat properly or go to the toilet. Despite the fact that he is a religious man and believes in God, he thinks that it is not worth living and wishes to die, but he cannot.
May I make it clear that I do not ignore or seek to downgrade the wonderful work of the hospice movement? Hospices are truly wonderful places that provide invaluable care for many people, allowing them to die with dignity and the minimum of suffering. I very much admire their work, but even the best-managed hospice cannot keep everyone free from pain. Palliative care experts, often hospice doctors, accept that not all terminal pain can be controlled.
I have heard the slippery slope argument, which is another scare story that is being spread around the world and this country. Opponents of voluntary euthanasia argue that voluntary euthanasia will soon lead to involuntary euthanasia—the so-called "slippery slope". The slippery slope argument has been used against every social reform in the history of this country, but there is no evidence for it. Voluntary euthanasia is entirely about personal choice and is distinct from murdering people whom others judge to be of less worth. I would not support legislation for involuntary euthanasia.
Some people are afraid that, if euthanasia becomes legal, it will be abused. I recognise and fully understand that fear, but nobody knows how much abuse takes place at present. Active euthanasia is practised outside the law. If it were brought out into the open and strictly controlled, as it is in the Netherlands, abuse would be less likely. For instance, at present, doctors allow patients to die by withholding treatment or not resuscitating after a heart attack. No one suggests that they do so because they want to free beds or are conspiring with greedy relatives. Safeguards against such abuse can be incorporated in future legislation.
It is time that the House reflected public opinion and brought the issue of decision making at the end of life out into the open. The decision to end life should be in the hands of those most involved—the patients. In the absence of a law permitting medical help to die, the power to control one's own destiny can be exercised by completing an advance directive or "living will", as they are often called. Drawing up an advance directive while a patient is of sound mind and body allows the patient to state clearly that, with a given prognosis, he or she does not want life-prolonging treatment.
Many thousands of people have already signed advance directives because they live in fear of having a tortured experience prolonged by medical technology and want to express their wishes in advance. Personally, I believe that prolonging life through artificial, modern technological means was also against the wish of God.
I welcome the great advance in patients' rights with the recent report by the Law Commission and the new code of practice recently issued by the British Medical Association. Between them, they have established that advance directives have legal force, which must be respected by an attending doctor. They also acknowledge that patients have autonomy over their decision, which doctors must respect. If unwanted life-prolonging treatment is given, the doctor is liable to be charged with assault. Those of us who do not want our lives prolonged unnecessarily are grateful for the acceptance of our right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.
Allowing patients to die by withholding medical treatment is not enough. Those of us who want medical help to die should have our pleas for help answered, as that can be the only humane and compassionate response to people's need.
The House should consider the fact that the country wants some sort of legislation so that those who suffer from incurable disease and want to take their own life should be allowed to do so. Obviously, there should be guarantees against abuse. If a law is passed by the House, it must incorporate guarantees and safeguards to prevent people from using unauthorised means or exploiting the situation, and make them responsible under the law if that happens. I hope that the House will consider the fact that there is another viewpoint, although the majority of hon. Members are not yet prepared to support such legislation.
I admire and praise the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's efforts to start this democratic debate, which people have a right to discuss. People should not be muzzled. A Bill should be introduced so that we can take further steps to discuss this important issue.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to make just a short contribution and to share my thoughts with my hon. Friends and those under whose chairmanship I have sat on the Select Committee over the years. The fact that we are debating this subject today shows that there is no stricture on open debate, and I am amazed at the closing comment by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Khabra). It was obvious that he had not even listened to the presentation of the Select Committee Chairman, who underlined the fact that euthanasia was not properly controlled in Holland and said that even the Netherlands ambassador to this country was not aware of what was going on.
When one denies the concept of a slippery slope, one must face the fact that doctors, nurses, lawyers and parliamentarians are all human. In every walk of life, people try to broaden the law to suit themselves. To suggest that it is not necessary to have restrictions stands against the revelations that have been made, even in the House today. An outstanding physician decided to terminate a monarch's life to hit a Times headline. The reality is that the law has been just ignored. Now we find that there are moves to broaden that law, which will be further ignored.
Depression hits most of us to some degree or other. The Old Testament contains a lovely illustration of a prophet who was in absolute depression and who wished that he might die. There was no Voluntary Euthanasia Society to help him then and the Almighty did not answer that prayer because He had something better for him. One may deny the authenticity of the scripture, but it tells us that he was taken to heaven later in a fiery chariot.
The apostle Paul, who suffered as much as any person, physically, mentally and morally, in prison and out of prison, had that most human of all wishes, that he might die, to be absent from the body and to be present with Christ, which would have been better by far. He realised, however, that there was a task to be done, and he continued to do that task.
Today, I not only support the speech by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but ask that we examine a little further the people who propose these movements. I know that in the House from time to time—I speak as a non-member of the masonic order—some people constantly see the masons behind everything. In the move to change society's thinking, could we ask the Eugenic Society to publish a list of its members so that we might know who is to the fore in so many spheres of life and changing society?
It is fascinating to see how people come along. The commission recommending changes in euthanasia includes a person who spent some time in Northern Ireland—Professor Simon Lee. He used the same philosophy to try to introduce into Northern Ireland the concepts of the Abortion Act 1967. He is seeking to broaden what is called voluntary euthanasia in the commission.
On living wills, I would have thought that lawyers would recognise that even people of sound mind regularly change their minds through life, and change their wills. I would have thought that, even on their death beds, some of those folk make valid changes to their wills. I do not believe in the concept of living wills because people change their minds.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind the let-out that one doctor suggested—that a voluntary living will may just say, "I wish to die at home". This might sound like music to the Treasury, because it would obviate any extra hospital expenses, but it could open the door for doctors, of whom some have taken the decision into their own hands, to administer the fatal dose that would terminate a person's life. We should not go further down that road—ostensibly in the name of freedom of choice—because we would create a position whereby people who need care and treatment will not be given a choice..

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am sorry that, because of the large interest in the debate, at least one hon. Member who wished to speak has been unable to do so, but I feel obliged briefly to give the Government's view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who secured the debate, asked me to do.
Euthanasia, as literally defined, means "an easy death" but the term is commonly used and is understood to mean mercy killing—the deliberate killing of someone, at his or her request, in a terminal condition and usually in severe pain or distress.
That topic provides scope for enormous argument, as has been shown today. It is not surprising that the House of Lords was inspired to set up the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which considered that topic and the issues surrounding it. That Committee did an excellent job in sifting and analysing the mass of evidence that was put to it, and it reached some conclusions on what is a sensitive issue. That could not have been easy, given the opposing views held by many of the people who gave evidence.
Some of the key issues were debated in another place on 9 May last year. I am pleased that the House has had an opportunity to do likewise and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield for raising the matter. The Government's overriding concern in the issue is to protect patients' interests, to safeguard the patient's right to consent to or refuse treatment, to ensure that adequate protection is given to people who are in no position to speak for themselves, and, most important, to ensure that actions that have as their intention another person's death continue to be unlawful.
As the Government's published response has made clear, we welcome the Select Committee's report, and we agree with the majority of its findings. The report's key element was the clear rejection of the case for the legalisation of euthanasia. The Committee did not accept that the arguments in favour were sufficient reasons to weaken society's prohibition of intentional killing. It said:
prohibition is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships.
It also said:
The message which society sends to vulnerable and disadvantaged people should not, however obliquely, encourage them to seek death, but should assure them of our care and support in life.
We entirely agree.
It is essential to draw a clear distinction between euthanasia, which is a positive intervention to end life, and the withholding or withdrawal of treatment that has no curative or beneficial effect. The question of whether to withhold treatment from someone who is not benefiting from it is different from euthanasia, although it raises similar moral and ethical questions. It is a doctor's duty to advise and provide for his patient such treatment as is, in his professional judgment, in the best interests of that patient and consistent with a responsible body of medical opinion.
A person's right to refuse treatment is an important one. A patient has a right to say no to his doctors. That applies whether a patient's reasons are, and I quote a legal judgment:
rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent.


Doctors have both an ethical and legal duty to abide by their patients' wishes. A clinician must of course be satisfied that a patient's decision to refuse treatment is genuine, made in a full understanding of the consequences, and not influenced by others. Someone who has a learning disability, who is mentally ill, confused as a result of drugs, or a child may not be capable of making a proper decision.
As the House has already noted, some people draw up advance directives or "living wills". They have been referred to in literature recently as advance statements, which are drawn up so that people's wishes may be taken into account in the future if, at that time, they are unable to express their views. Such statements are an extension of the patient's right to say no to treatment, and are supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics and the Law Commission.
The commission makes recommendations, however, that advance statements be defined in legislation and their status clarified in law. We shall consider that proposal. Advance statements are of course nothing to do with euthanasia. They cannot require doctors to perform an illegal act such as deliberate killing.
I regard palliative care as one of the great advances in our society in recent years, as has been mentioned eloquently by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In recent years, we have continued to support, with a sixfold rise in central funding, hospices and palliative care services. We shall continue to do so. We recognise their enormous contribution. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Rowe) said, in Holland there is little palliative care.
In conclusion, I shall re-state the Government's opinion. We are not engaged in any action that we believe would take us down a slippery slope. We envisage no change to the law or practice at present. I emphasise that the Government remain firmly opposed to euthanasia.

Neath General Hospital

Mr. Peter Hain: On 18 and 19 March 1995, Neath hospital hit national headlines because its casualty unit was closed overnight; but that was only the tip of the iceberg. There is a crisis at the hospital, of which that casualty closure was simply an example. I believe that the hospital is deliberately being allowed to bleed to death as a result of Welsh Office policy.
The Secretary of State for Wales favours local hospitals and opposes centralisation. I applaud that. The way in which he has openly nailed his colours to the mast in that respect is very welcome. However, paradoxically, in practice his officials are sabotaging the policy that he has advocated, and that is no more clearly shown than in the impact on Neath hospital.
On 19 January 1995, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I met the Secretary of State. To be fair, we were very impressed with his response. The Secretary of State said that he supported the local hospital. He said that he would agree to additional recruitment in excess of the going rate, and that he would give a clear commitment to the future of the hospital. That was very welcome.
However, since then, we have had two more vacancies in anaesthetics and one more vacancy among surgical consultants. The hospital now says that it cannot recruit any more senior house officers after August, except by going to Germany and except by allowing a trend to continue whereby the hospital will soon be staffed almost entirely by overseas doctors.
Neath hospital has traditionally functioned as the only district hospital in West Glamorgan supplying a full range of facilities and opportunities in general medicine, general surgery, obstetrics, gynaecology, trauma, orthopaedics, paediatrics and accident and emergency. It has always had the reputation of being an efficient hospital with low costs, short waiting lists and strong support from the local public, local general practitioners and the purchasing health authority.
For some years, there has been a demand—indeed there were proposals—for a replacement hospital. That has at last been agreed, but only after the saga has dragged on for many years. The outcome was that, following a review by the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State agreed that there would be a replacement general hospital. However, it would have only 250 beds instead of the present 350–bed facility at Neath, and, instead of providing the full range of general hospital facilities that are provided at Neath, the new hospital would admit all emergency and elective planned cases with a mix of medical emergency cases and elective surgery work but would require that all trauma and high risk elective surgical cases—by that, I mean emergency surgical patients—would be treated elsewhere. It was hoped that, if that model were implemented, the hospital would be up and running in about three years.
That model was accepted by the local community, not because we favoured it—we had grave suspicions about it, which are now proving well founded—but because we felt that it was necessary to get the new hospital up and running, and that half a loaf was better than no bread.
Many consultants, and all local GPs, believe that the model that the Secretary of State has proposed for the new hospital, which is now being introduced by stealth, is not feasible—is seriously flawed—because it was based on the proposition that there is over-capacity in West Glamorgan, whereas anyone who knows the region knows that that is not the case.
Last year, Neath hospital was closed 90 times because it was full. This year, it has already been closed 31 times. I know of many cases that have been referred to Bridgend, Llanelli and even Cardiff because the hospital at Neath cannot cope with the referrals to it. If that is the case now, reducing the hospital bed capacity by a further 100, as will happen when the new hospital replaces it, will be a disaster. It is a myth that there is over-capacity in West Glamorgan. For that reason, the model that the Welsh Office persuaded the Secretary of State to adopt is fundamentally flawed.
The majority of the consultants in West Glamorgan have taken a different view. They say that the model is flawed because it is inappropriate to manage medical emergencies without back-up surgical facilities. They therefore seek to centralise all emergencies, including medicine, on Morriston hospital and leave the new Neath hospital—and, indeed, increasingly the present one—responsible only for dealing with out-patients and day cases and perhaps some non-acute medical cases. The implication is that there will be no obstetrics or in-patient paediatric facilities.
We are victims of what is effectively a conspiracy—I use the term deliberately, although it is a serious charge to make—by Welsh Office officials, by the Royal College of Surgeons and by consultants, to undermine the facility at Neath and to turn a once proud hospital into a pale shadow of itself, because, if one does not provide emergency surgery, training for junior staff is inadequate.
The university of Wales college of medicine allocates house officer posts. It is already signalling that it is unwilling to allocate house officer posts to Neath hospital on the basis of the existing deteriorating position, let alone the new model in the replacement hospital, in spite of the fact that Neath hospital has always had a very good reputation for training. Indeed, a recent survey placed it at the top of the list.
However, other hospitals are also in the market for house officer posts, so they are encouraging applicants, and indeed existing postholders, to withdraw from Neath and move to their own hospitals. The decision by the Royal College of Surgeons to withdraw training accreditation is making the position much worse.
I believe, and most—if not all—doctors in West Glamorgan would argue, that the model that the Secretary of State has proposed for the new hospital, which effectively is being put into practice from now on in anticipation, is fundamentally flawed, and that we should have a full range of emergency admissions, similar to that which exists, for example, at Llanelli hospital. Failure to do so has created a profound period of uncertainty, and many medical staff and other senior staff are voting with their feet. That has inevitably meant that a question mark hangs over the future of the hospital, and confidence has been destroyed.
The problem has been compounded by the requirement that the Secretary of State has introduced, to seek private finance funds for the new hospital, which has meant further delay and uncertainty, although he has given assurances that nevertheless it will be built on time, for which we are grateful.
The management of the hospital has tried several innovative approaches to recruit staff, but they struggle against a lack of commitment by many local consultants to the model that the Secretary of State has specified and active attempts to destabilise the position by the surrounding trusts, which are benefiting from having work taken away from Neath and moved to their hospitals.
The internal market of competitive trusts is strangling Neath hospital. That is clearly shown by the fact that independent trusts nearby are competing with Neath, not co-operating as the Secretary of State has asked. They deliberately poach staff and seek to undermine, rather than co-operate with, Neath hospital.
A whispering campaign is going on to undermine the hospital. It is happening in a variety of ways. Accreditation of junior staff is being undermined. The withdrawal of pre-registration house officer posts is having a serious effect. Disinformation is being provided to potential applicants at a junior staff level about the pace of change and the future of the hospital. Consultant staff are also being poached by adjacent trusts.
Those elements are collectively resulting in a crisis at the hospital, of which the closure of the casualty unit is simply one aspect. As a result, many of the specialties of Neath hospital rely on locum consultants, as it has proved impossible to recruit permanent staff.
We had a meeting with the Secretary of State in January, and since then, there have been a series of extra vacancies in anaesthetics and surgery. There are now four vacancies out of six in anaesthetics, and three vacancies out of four in surgery. Four of those vacancies have resulted from poaching by Morriston or Singleton hospital trusts in the neighbouring region. We suffer from direct competition.
In addition, there is one senior house office vacancy out of four in the accident and emergency unit, and house officers have threatened the withdrawal of all posts after August. That may be averted—the local management believe that that could be possible. If so, that will only be until next year, when emergency surgery is withdrawn almost completely. If that happens, there will be no casualty service—it will be closed not overnight, but permanently.
I welcomed the recent statement by the Secretary of State, in which he committed himself to local hospital provision, stressed the importance of local access and expressed his concerns about the impact of centralisation. He has shown some courage in doing so, and I welcome that. However, in terms of the way in which the internal market operates, Neath hospital was cost-effective and had strong purchaser support. It has had a reputation for being responsive to the needs of local general practitioners and the public. It has been torn apart, not because it was unsuccessful, but because of Welsh Office dogma.
That dogma is not necessarily shared by the Secretary of State, but it is implemented by his officials, and at present he seems unwilling to resist it. That has led to a disaster for outlying villages up the valleys—in former


mining villages such as Banwen, Glynneath and Tonmawr. Their residents now face journeys along the traffic-clogged M4 of up to half an hour to get to Morriston hospital, which has the nearest major accident and emergency and acute surgery provision. Any further traffic problems along that route could result in lives being put at risk, and many serious problems for outlying villages.
The position all depends on the environment in which the hospital now has to operate. In determining that some of the district general hospital services should transfer elsewhere, the Welsh Office has disrupted a well-established and effective pattern of services and replaced it with a model in which no one has confidence. Local medical staff, consultants, GPs, the local health authority and the local management have no confidence in it—I can find no one in my area or elsewhere who has confidence in it. The model is untested, and no one has confidence in the Secretary of State's proposal for the replacement hospital, prefigured in the way that Neath hospital is being run down.
It is not too late for the Secretary of State to act, which is why I am appealing to him in today's debate. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), will respond positively. I am seeking not to engage in a political knocking exercise, but to obtain the support of politicians and to persuade them to put themselves in charge of the Welsh Office, rather than leaving it to medical experts with fancy theories of centralisation that bear no resemblance to the need for local provision on the ground.
It is not too late for the Secretary of State to make a business case stating that the new hospital is based on retaining all the general hospital facilities. There is no evidence that the anticipated savings that some believe would come from the Secretary of State's proposals and the new model will be achieved. I would argue—I stand ready to be tested on it in future years—that the changes will cost more because, if cost-effective, small district general hospitals are replaced by high-cost, centralised, specialised facilities, they tend to ratchet up of costs. The provision will not be cheaper, but more expensive, and local people will suffer badly.
Officials at the Welsh Office continue to agree to increasing capacity in hospitals near Neath. New theatres have been built at Singleton, and there is a phase 2 development at the Princess of Wales hospital at Bridgend. The Morriston hospital has recently been provided with a burns and plastics unit. All those developments have been taken place while Neath hospital has been run down.
All those hospitals have the potential to ensure that the proposed 250–bed hospital that will be sited on Baglan moor in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon is not viable. That will be particularly true if all the senior medical staff walk away from the hospital.
Civil servants at the Welsh Office seem hellbent on destroying what was once one of the most effective district general hospitals in Wales and replacing it with a new model of care which has yet to be tested anywhere in the United Kingdom, which has no local medical support and which has the potential to end up as an expensive cottage hospital, not the district general hospital that the Secretary of State promised my right hon. Friend and me in 1993.
I have two specific requests for the Under-Secretary of State. First, will he ensure, and make a commitment this afternoon, that admissions for emergency surgery will be kept in the new hospital and at Neath hospital? Why should we be inferior to Llanelli hospital which has that provision? Will he reject the centralisation of facilities and emergency provision which is inherent in the existing position and which will accelerate as it deteriorates, so that everything will be concentrated at either Morriston or Singleton hospitals?
If the Secretary of State genuinely believes—I have no reason to doubt him—in local hospitals and community provision, it is essential for him to reject that centralisation. It would not affect the capital requirements in the project. If the concern is to obtain private capital, such a policy may be more attractive to those interested in providing private capital, because they will recognise a model that is more familiar and more cost-effective. My first request is for the Minister to reverse the process towards centralisation, and agree that the new hospital will retain all district general hospital emergency facility capabilities.
Secondly, will the Minister instruct all the neighbouring trusts to support Neath general hospital? In the meeting which we had with him in January, the Secretary of State told my right hon. and learned Friend and me that he was keen to discourage neighbouring trust hospitals from competing and undermining Neath, and that, on the contrary, they should support it. But there has been no letter from the Secretary of State's office to those trust hospitals to implement that wish.
I ask the Secretary of State to send such a letter. If he does not do so, local people will face a catastrophe—a hospital which they have valued for generations, which is much loved and which has provided a range of district general hospital facilities upon which they have grown to depend, will be swept away. In its place, we shall have a hospital on Baglan moor that is a pale shadow of its former self, because Neath hospital is being allowed to bleed to death.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): I welcome the opportunity to discuss the current and future provision of accident and emergency services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot.
Accident and emergency facilities play an important role in the provision of health services to meet the needs of the public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to ensuring that both the current service at Neath general hospital and the future service at Baglan hospital will meet those needs. Contrary to recent media reports and to what the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said, there is no conspiracy against Neath general hospital, although there are difficulties in achieving the outcome that we desire.
I thought that the hon. Member's attack on Welsh Office officials was quite disgraceful. He knows perfectly well that they are in no position to answer his outrageous charges against them. If the hon. Gentleman thinks for one moment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is not in full charge of the Welsh Office, he clearly does not know my right hon. Friend very well.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about a whispering campaign designed to undermine the morale of Neath general hospital. Nothing is more likely to undermine the morale of the hospital's staff or the recruitment of future staff than his standing on the world stage and drawing attention to some of the difficulties that Neath general hospital currently faces.

Mr. Hain: That is an outrageous charge. I know what is going on in Neath general hospital. The Minister talks to his officials from on high; he does not know what is going on at Neath hospital. What I have said has nothing to do with accusations; I have presented the factually supported results of the Minister's policies. People are walking away from Neath hospital. The whispering campaign is being conducted not by politicians, but by his own Welsh Office officials and by consultants working in concert with them.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it leads me to my next remarks. I visited Neath general hospital on 16 February 1995 to see at first hand the excellent work that all involved at the hospital have achieved. I also talked to the local clinicians, and listened to their concerns.
I share the concerns expressed at the staffing difficulties that led recently to the temporary closure of the accident unit at Neath general hospital. I understand that efforts are being made to avoid further disruption, first through the appointment of a full-time locum consultant in the accident and emergency department in order to cover the maternity leave of the present consultant; and, secondly, by attempting to recruit accident and emergency senior house officers from a wider field, such as Germany. I think that the hon. Gentleman's comments about medical staff from overseas being employed at Neath general hospital are a bit rich, in view of the fact that he is an overseas Member of Parliament.
Should that exercise be unsuccessful, I understand that efforts will be made to identify other career-grade doctors who could be employed on a permanent basis. I am assured that five candidates have been shortlisted for anaesthetist positions at the hospital. That is an encouraging response, and interviews will be held shortly.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined that everything shall be done to ensure that accident and emergency units in Wales—not just in Neath—avoid further temporary closures due to staffing problems. But the staffing problems are not particular to Neath or to Wales; they are being experienced in many parts of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Neath on 28 March, summarising the urgent action that he has asked for in order to address the staffing problems. That aims to ensure that any short-term staffing difficulties in accident and emergency units are identified as soon as possible. It also seeks to ensure that effective measures are taken to reduce significantly the risk of disruption to patients.
Senior medical staff from the Welsh Office recently met accident and emergency experts in South Wales to identify the problems involved. They also agreed what needs to be done to ensure continuity of service in this

essential area of care. I am told that the meeting identified a number of the more important factors which have made it difficult to recruit enough experienced staff to the casualty service.
The meeting also proposed possible solutions to those difficulties. They include the employment of nurse practitioners, more career-grade appointments, and the rotation of medical posts to include a number of other accident and emergency departments. The co-operation that the hon. Member for Neath referred to, and specifically asked me to comment upon, is taking place already. I assure him that the chairman of West Glamorgan health authority recently wrote to the chairmen of the three existing national health service trusts to emphasise the need for local cooperation.
More work will be required in order to build on that promising start, but I am hopeful that a satisfactory understanding can be reached between hospitals in South Wales as to how they can work together to minimise the risk of further disruption to those essential services.
In July 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his approval to West Glamorgan health authority proposals for improving health services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot. The plans included the provision of a 24–hour local accident unit at the new hospital at Baglan.
In giving his approval, my right hon. Friend recognised the need for the people of Neath and Port Talbot to have an appropriate local accident and emergency service. The new local accident unit will provide for the majority of cases currently cared for by the existing accident and emergency departments—including about 75 per cent. of all cases at Neath hospital—including simple fractures, and it will do so in state-of-the-art facilities.
It remains the view of my right hon. Friend and me, based on the best medical advice available to us, that seriously injured patients and those requiring more complex or high-risk emergency surgery should be treated in centres where full back-up services are available, including neurosurgery in the case of Morriston. It is centres such as those which have been shown to deliver the best results in terms of reducing the threat to life and avoiding permanent disability.
I have talked about accident and emergency services at Neath, and our commitment to providing appropriate local accident services at the new hospital at Baglan. I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on progress with the new hospital as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the hon. Member for Neath, together with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), on 19 January 1995, and confirmed he his commitment to developing services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Neath has said today, we want to see services maintained at Neath general hospital while planning for the new Baglan hospital goes ahead.
I am aware that local medical opinion remains divided about the precise role of the new hospital. Concern has been expressed about the recruitment of medical staff for the new hospital, and the opportunities there will be for the training and development of such staff. When my right hon. Friend gave his approval to the new hospital, his three main criteria were: clinical safety, access to services for the local population, and value for money. Of those, the most important are clinical safety and access.
A judgment was made that, in order to maximise access for the local population, the widest range of health services that could be safely delivered locally should be provided at Baglan. As well as the local accident unit, the new hospital will therefore offer out-patient clinics and the most up-to-date facilities to deal with non-emergency surgery, as well as acute general medicine, care of the elderly, rehabilitation services and facilities for people with acute mental illness.
When the decision was made, all of the local national health service interests were asked to work together to ensure that the new hospital was developed as quickly as possible, without disruption of services. It is therefore with disappointment that my right hon. Friend and I have observed the continuing public disagreements in West Glamorgan about the role of the new hospital. The hon. Gentleman does his constituents no favours by continuing that argument in the Chamber. I am sure that many—including, patients and local people—will see the disagreements as blocking the way to early progress with the development of Baglan.
At the end of the day, the Welsh Office can provide only the framework and funding, where needed, in order to improve local health services. The delivery of improved services depends entirely on local health professionals and managers putting aside any differences and working together to improve services for patients. Local people expect no less.
I was therefore encouraged to learn that the chairman of West Glamorgan health authority has invited the chairmen and chief executives of local NHS trusts to meet to agree what needs to be done in order to resolve local differences and how best to finalise the planning for the new hospital at Baglan. I very much welcome his initiative, and I have asked for a report on the outcome of the meeting.
From 1 April 1996, when the new West Glamorgan health authority is to be established, the area will be well served by four national health service trusts, which will provide high-quality patient care from four main district general hospitals. A full range of community care and health services will also be provided for many local hospitals and clinics throughout the area. The services in West Glamorgan will then comprise the regional burns and plastics centre, a magnetic resonance imaging scanner, a special care baby unit and a centrally funded treatment centre, in addition to acute and community services.
The trusts will employ a dedicated staff of around 10,000, including highly qualified clinicians and nurses. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the proposal to build a hospital at Baglan, he said that, if there was insufficient capacity there in terms of the number of beds, it would be looked at again, and the hon. Member for Neath knows that.
I hope that what I have said confirms the Department's determination to ensure that health services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot meet the high standards which the public rightly expects from today's NHS. I also emphasise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Grant-maintained schools

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of grant-maintained schools, and I also wish to talk widely about funding. There is no doubt that the Government's reforms have given parents better choice and information about their children's education while raising standards significantly. Since 1979, spending per pupil has risen by 50 per cent. over inflation. We have also given schools the opportunity to become grant-maintained, which provides a form of choice within the state system.
There are three secondary schools in my constituency which have become grant-maintained—Belper, with approximately 1,000 pupils; Ecclesbourne, with approximately 1,300 pupils; and Lady Manners school at Bakewell, which has more than 1,400 pupils.
The head of Belper said that the school had benefited from enhanced funding because
although we are linked to the Derbyshire formula the element of central costs can be spent specifically to meet our own needs. Independence enables us to manage our finances far more effectively because we have full control.
The head of Ecclesbourne said that the last four years
have been the most professionally fulfilling of nearly two decades of headship. Not only have we been able to put right most of the physical deficiencies of the School's site and buildings, we have been able to assign a much higher proportion of what was our share of the resources allocated to Derbyshire for education to the business of teaching and learning.
The head of Lady Manners said:
Independence, control of policies or developments and the direction of resources to achieve these priorities for the benefit of student counts among the major gains of GM status. So too the renewed enthusiasm of Governors and staff which flows from being able to plan with a realistic hope of delivery. Staff morale is greatly strengthened reflecting improved working conditions, extra ancillary support, more teachers …, hefty increase in spending on books and equipment and a major programme of redecoration".
Those are some of the genuine changes that the grant-maintained system has brought to state education, and I welcome them. However, I must acknowledge that not all schools wish to go down the route of becoming grant-maintained. That is something that I respect, although schools that have become grant-maintained have found enhanced freedoms.
I would like to bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention one of the problems for grant-maintained schools, which is the way in which the budgets for grant-maintained schools are set. I would like the Government to embark on a national funding formula for all schools—whether grant-maintained or not. At the moment, there are great variations as to what money is made available by LEAs to go into schools.
For example, in Hertfordshire the delegation is 91.3 per cent, while the delegation in Derbyshire is 85 per cent.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be an apologist for Derbyshire county council, he can apply for his own debate. There are problems in my constituency which are related to the fact that Derbyshire county council is holding back far too much finance.
Derbyshire's overall schools budget represents spending of about £2,280 pounds per pupil—higher than 12 other counties—while the potential school budget represents £1,840 per pupil, which is higher only than Dorset, Gloucestershire and Staffordshire. The actual amount delegated to schools in Derbyshire is £1,560 per pupil—the second lowest of any county after Gloucestershire. The hold-back in Derbyshire amounts to some £720 per pupil which is spent by the LEA.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My local council is about as bad as Derbyshire. For village schools, however, it is not only a question of funding. My county council has repeatedly attempted to close village schools, and was prevented from doing so only by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). The county council is rumoured to be about to attempt again to close village schools. If those schools were to become grant-maintained, they would not only get better funding but be safe. Once a school has become grant-maintained, a county council cannot close it—even if it wishes to do so.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend might also find that schools that become grant-maintained become far more attractive to parents. The schools would find their numbers going up, which would improve their position.
There are so many different ways in which people look at finance for education. One of my beliefs is that we desperately need a national funding formula. Of the amount withheld from its potential schools budget, Staffordshire spends £2,975,000 on management, or 1 per cent., to manage some 160,000 pupils. In Derbyshire, the figure is £3,787,000, or 1.6 per cent., to manage some 128,000 pupils. That £1 million is spent by the LEA and is not available to go to schools.
My point—as I have said before—is that one cannot spend money twice. If one is spending more money on administration, that money is not available to go into schools in the county. We need a national understanding of the way in which education finance is worked out. The differences between the potential schools budget and the aggregate schools budget create confusion. That has allowed county councils to receive money for education without putting that money directly into schools.
Some £720 per pupil was spent by Derbyshire LEA in addition to the amount delegated to each school, compared with £570 in Nottinghamshire and £550 in Staffordshire. That is a difference of £150 per pupil, which makes a vast sum when we are talking about a primary school with 200 pupils—let alone what it amounts to in secondary schools. I urge my hon. Friend and the Government seriously to consider a national funding formula.
In 1994–95, the education standard spending assessment for Derbyshire rose by 2 per cent., but the county council cut it by 2 per cent. This year, the education SSA is to rise by 0.7 per cent., but schools are receiving cuts in their budgets. Cuts are coming at the sharp end, and the council has started to blame everyone but itself.
The power of local authority decisions to affect the funding of grant-maintained schools must be removed. The Minister and the Secretary of State have stated that local authorities have a right to set their own priorities,

but the interests of pupils in the grant-maintained sector are not among the priorities of local education authorities which have done everything they possibly can to stop schools becoming grant-maintained. More generally, protecting front-line services conflicts with a local authority's desire to protect its own powers of control and employees who want to carry out their instructions.
The current funding formula goes some way towards improving the position of GM schools. It protects them from changes in the local management of schools formula, which can be manipulated to their disadvantage. However, it is subject to the removal of the top slice, which the LEA can plan to increase, leaving a reduced amount for front-line services. The link with LEA spending decisions contributes to unacceptable delays in receiving funding information.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have been pursuing with the Funding Agency for Schools the difference between the amounts originally promised to GM schools and the actual grants. One explanation given by the agency is the discrepancy between estimated pupil numbers provided by schools and those provided by LEAs. If the agency cannot even get agreement on pupil numbers, that matter must be seriously addressed.
A national funding formula is the only way to ensure long-term accountability for decisions on school incomes and major items of expenditure. In return, a school can be expected to account to parents for proper management of the funds that it receives and to accept its share of responsibility. National funding should be distributed in an equitable, predictable and simple manner dissociated from historical and current spending issues, and be transparent.
Experience shows that it is sometimes unwise to make major changes without a pilot scheme. The grant-maintained sector should, and could, be used for a pilot, and then the scheme ought to be made available to every school in the country. In that way, the Government can ensure that the money that they set aside for education gets to front-line services. I do not mind taking the blame for decisions when I have responsibility for them, but not when I do not have any responsibility. Local education authorities are ensuring that money that should go to front-line services is used in other ways.
We have never blinked or taken a backward step from radical approaches in education now endorsed by many hon. Members. Some of them have taken advantage of those changes—for example, by sending their children to schools that best meet their needs, even when that means crossing borders. Ten years ago, such choices were unknown, before the Bill for which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) had much responsibility, jointly with other Ministers.
I do not want those excellent changes to be put at risk but want further changes to be made. I want the money designated for education to be used in schools, not in county halls. At the moment, there are too many ways in which funds can be diverted into the pet areas of chief education officers or education committee chairmen. The right way forward is a national funding formula for all schools. Until then, let us have a pilot scheme.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider also making a minor change. When a county becomes part of a common funding formula, why not announce that all primary and secondary schools in that county will be part of that formula? Let us do away with the differential


between primary and secondary schools. That would be a small start, but a small start in a major direction—and one of major significance to our state education system.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) for allowing me to speak in this timely debate. He kindly mentioned my role in the enactment of the Education Reform Act 1988, which gave powers and opportunities to schools to opt out of local authority control if that was the wish of parents expressed in a ballot. I am delighted that, in my constituency, nine schools have become grant-maintained since 1988. Together with the city technology college, they offer choice and variety second to none in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may point out gently to the House and to the people of Dartford that the range of schools in north-west Kent exists not because of spontaneous combustion or divine intervention but because of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979. It is an indisputable fact that Labour would end that choice. Despite all the efforts of the spin doctors and soundbite merchants who currently dominate the Labour party, it would take away grant-maintained status, close grammar schools, CTCs and high schools and require all schools in Dartford to become comprehensives for 11 to 16–year-olds. Of that there is no doubt.
One message that came out of Blackpool over the last few days from the National Union of Teachers conference—apart from showing a trade union out of control—was that the union expected a Labour Government to return the 1,050 opted-out schools to local authority control, despite the wishes of parents, expressed in the democratic process, for those schools to opt out.
Gravesend grammar school for boys, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) but to which many parents in my constituency send their children, recently voted by a 70 per cent. majority to become grant-maintained. Parents from Hartley, Fawkham, Ash-cum-Ridley, Longfield, New Barn and Southfleet voted with others from Gravesend to that effect. Of significance was the success of that vote, despite the best endeavours of the county council, and the fact that the campaign was led, motivated and supported by the chairman of governors, Mr. Eric Hammond—who I suspect has more to do with Labour Members than with the Conservative party. That campaign was successful because parents had seen the value and benefit of grant-maintained status.
Sixty thousand children in Kent are currently educated in grant-maintained schools. A vote for Labour in the forthcoming local elections would be a vote to end that situation. It would be a vote against grammar schools, CTCs and high schools, and a vote against local freedom for local schools in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire described.
Only the Conservative party, believing in Conservative policies, would ensure the continuation of the current position. I advise the people of Dartford to think carefully before they vote on 4 May. A vote for Labour is a vote to end range, variety and freedom of choice. The grant-maintained policy was one of the best that this Government have ever introduced. More and more schools and parents will see that as time goes on. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The House has been privileged to hear powerful and well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), a former Education Minister who speaks with great authority on these matters. I confess that the subject of grant-maintained schools is one close to my heart, and it allowed my hon. Friends to refer to several other aspects of funding and related issues. In the time available, I shall seek to respond to the points made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire.
Perhaps the obvious starting point on funding is to confirm that Derbyshire county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its own priorities between and within services. It is the council that has the final say on how much is spent on education and how much on other services. As we are all aware, there are wide variations between and within authorities, because local management of schools schemes devote additional funding to schools with high levels of need.
It is important to put on record yet again the fact that the Government and Ministers are not seeking to pass the buck. Our role is clear in funding local authority services. We set the overall framework for the funding of local authority services nationally. We determine the way in which national standard spending totals are distributed between local authorities through the standard spending assessment system.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, over the past five years, Derbyshire's SSA has increased by over 23 per cent., which has been well above the rate of inflation. As he knows, the SSA is scheduled to increase during the current year, 1995–96. The capping rules allow Derbyshire to spend more than the council did in 1994–95. In total, Derbyshire is able to spend about £550 million on all its services. That is a significant sum.
My hon. Friend drew attention to some funding per pupil comparisons with other authorities. He mentioned Hertfordshire and Staffordshire. I shall not bedevil the debate with a mass of statistics, but it is important that I take up a couple of central issues, not least because I know from the correspondence that the Department receives that there is some misunderstanding when it comes to funding per pupil comparisons.
The SSA system does not set out to allow the same level of spending for each pupil. Indeed, it should not do so. The aim is to provide for funding for a common standard of service throughout the country, taking account of the fact that the costs of providing education inevitably vary from local education authority to local education authority. Need varies from one council to another and so, therefore, does poundage for pupil as implied in each authority's SSA.
The SSAs reflect the additional costs of educating children in sparsely populated areas, for example. They take account of socio-economic disadvantage, high proportions of non-English-speaking children and higher labour and other costs through what is known in the trade as the area cost adjustment. As my hon. Friend knows, the ACA is fairly controversial. Very few local authorities, whether they are recipients of the ACA or non-recipients, agree on its calculation. However, no local authority


association questions the need for some way of recovering the inevitably higher costs that councils in the south-east face in running their schools. These considerations are not limited purely to teachers' salaries. They read across into other expenditure areas and other employment areas within schools.
We are interested in considering whether the present methodology could be improved, and we shall consider carefully the different representations that we have received on the issue. In doing that, however, we must take account of all the factors—I have listed only a few—that cause education costs to vary throughout the country.
My hon. Friend spoke with great feeling about the share of budget retained by the Derbyshire LEA.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Squire: As echoed by my hon. Friend.
As both my hon. Friends are aware, the level of resources retained by LEAs has to be a matter for them to determine, subject only to a minimum requirement that they must delegate 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget to schools.
In 1994–95, Derbyshire just managed to achieve the minimum requirement. Despite an intervention from a sedentary position that I heard earlier, I must say that the matter has not yet formally been advised to my Department. I understand that preliminary signs for the current year, 1995–96, are that Derbyshire will be in the middle of the range when it comes to examining the amounts that authorities hold back.
It is important that we should encourage delegation, but not for delegation's sake alone, which would be foolish. It is important that the scheme should command the support of schools within an LEA. It is clear, however, from our experience of grant-maintained schools, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire made correct and proper reference, that the more that schools control their own budgets, the better value for money they get, to the benefit of the pupils in their care.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between the potential schools budget and the allocation of 85 per cent. and the general schools budget? If we consider delegation over the two budgets, we see that the figure is substantially lower than 85 per cent.

Mr. Squire: There is a difference between the two budgets, from which I was endeavouring to protect the House. In terms of the potential schools budget, 85 per cent. is covered by regulation. I readily confirm that there are at least two separate figures involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a national funding formula. Here we are in extremely interesting waters. I need no persuading that there are attractions in principle in a national uniform system that is simple to understand, more manageable to operate and demonstrably fair and transparent. As I am sure other

Ministers have said in other contexts, however, it is not quite as simple as that. There are several strategic questions.
My hon. Friend made it clear that he would apply a national funding formula to GM schools and non-GM schools. He will understand immediately that that is not necessarily the outcome of such a formula. If it were to apply only to GM schools, what would be the position of LEA schools? My hon. Friend recognises that that question would arise. If a national funding formula covered all schools, what would we do about local discretion, which presently allows local authorities to spend more or less of their education SSA on a school as they deem fit? Where in all this would SSAs fit in?
In terms of principle, the local management of schools and the common funding formula have already demonstrated the tensions that can be created between self-evident ideals. How do we reconcile the simplicity argument with meeting a wide range of needs? I say with certainty as someone who has wrestled—I hope advantageously—with the common funding formula over the past year or two that there is a difficult trade-off between simplicity and meeting the needs of schools. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to see schools with higher expenditure finding relief within the funding system.
The issue is topical and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sympathetic in principle. However, I urge my hon. Friend and other supporters of a national funding formula to allow us to proceed carefully. The worst option of all would be to produce an entirely new formula that contained within it, because of the speed with which it had been created, the seeds of great and significant problems. I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend on that issue and that he accepts that we are open to persuasion.
The central factor, to which all my hon. Friends have referred, is the glowing success of the GM movement and self-governing in schools in general.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, once a school has become grant-maintained, the county cannot close it?

Mr. Squire: I confirm that the county cannot close it. All school closures, by definition, come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Although a county can comment on the position of a grant-maintained school, it does not have the power to close it. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
By controlling their budgets, as hon. Members have said, grant-maintained schools control their own destiny. We have heard all the advantages, but I shall not repeat them, because time does not allow me to do so. I do not wish to suggest that grant-maintained status is the only precondition of success, as there are good schools that are not grant-maintained, but there is a disproportionate number of successful schools in the grant-maintained sector. That is striking. It is the freedom that grant-maintained schools enjoy, to release energy, enterprise and commitment, that allows schools to realise success throughout the country, and many found that impossible under local authority control.

Bull Bars

2 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn: Mr. Ian Farnworth, aged 17, of Whitley Bay, was killed last November by a bull bar. His father asked me to mention his son's name in today's debate, because both his parents, his surgeon, Mr. Charles Goring, and the local newspaper, the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, are convinced that Mr. Farnworth would be alive today if the vehicle that hit him had not had a bull bar. I could fill the next half an hour with a litany of similar sad stories. This one is particularly harrowing because it involved a young man in the prime of life, who had just left school and was about to embark on his first job. His life was destroyed by a part of a vehicle that has no practical value and is merely a fashion accessory.
There are many other vivid reports. I shall mention one of them, but I will not mention the man's name because I do not have the permission of his family. The son of a man killed in Cleveland described his father's injuries. He said:
My father's spine was broken in five places and his pelvis was so bad that his leg virtually fell off. His body was shattered. The doctor said it was as if he had been hit by a ten-ton going at 70mph. The bull bars made a terrible impact.
The man was hit not by a truck but by a police van, travelling, as in the other case, below the speed limit.
These terrible adornments on cars concentrate the impact of the collision on a tiny area rather than a larger area, as would be the case if someone were struck by a car that did not have a bull bar. I am grateful to the researchers in this country, including the Transport Research Laboratory, and the researchers in Germany, New Zealand and Australia, who have sent me a huge number of reports and information, all of which come to the same conclusion: bull bars turn slight injury accidents into serious injury accidents, and serious accidents into fatalities.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject today. I shall give him one example—a personal example. My son, two years ago, when he was two, was involved in an accident in which a car hit him. The car was probably travelling at about 10 mph at the time. He ended up with a very bloody head injury, which caused him and his parents enormous distress for 24 hours, but fortunately that was all it was. If that car had been equipped with bull bars, my son might not be alive today, so I hope that the Minister will pay due attention to the debate that my hon. Friend has introduced.

Mr. Flynn: There is a particular peril for children, because the height of the bar is often the same height as a child's head. The research from Germany shows that 95 per cent. of children would be expected to survive the impact of a crash at about 20 mph, but a vehicle fitted with bull bars would inflict life-threatening injuries on all children if it were travelling at 12 mph, and that they could possibly die even at 10 mph. Those are horrific figures. In fact, the German researchers stopped using the plastic domes to represent a child's head in any of their trials because they were shattering at such low speeds.
The argument against bull bars has been proven. Figures from the TRL, backed up by all the other research, show that the fitting of bull bars in the United Kingdom

could lead to 35 additional deaths and 350 additional serious injuries each year by 1996. But things are far worse than that, because, as the Royal Automobile Club pointed out—it has conducted a splendid campaign on this matter—the figures were based on a projection of 2.4 per cent. of the vehicle fleet being fitted with bull bars. Now that they are increasingly being fitted to delivery vans, pick-up trucks—even—ambulances—the total potential market for bull bars is about 12 per cent. of the UK vehicle market. If we extrapolate from those figures, we are talking about an additional 175 fatal accidents and an additional 1,750 serious accidents.
What is the purpose of bull bars? They started in Australia, and even as long ago as 1980 the Australians said that they were dangerous and that they had no useful purpose other than in agricultural use. In Australia, they were known as "roo" bars, because kangaroos were attracted to vehicles and the bars were used to protect the headlights of vehicles. There is a case to be made, as many people have told me, for the use of bull bars on farmland and so on. It is quite reasonable that they should be used, like other farm implements, on agricultural land, but banned on the road. It is quite simple to make them demountable, as many of them are at the moment. That is simple. We are talking about the cars that are used on public roads.
I am grateful to the Minister and to his predecessor for the many letters that they have sent me, which have been considerate and thoughtful. They understand the position precisely, but the area with which I disagree is that they have not taken any effective action to reduce the numbers. The Minister told me in July last year that his Department was asking the motor industry to act and not to fit bull bars or advertise them. Unfortunately, that was a failure. Only one company—Volvo, I understand—has banned them, to its great credit.
I received a letter from a gentleman in London, who told me that, in the interests of road safety, he wanted to fit two additional lamps on his Rover Discovery, but the only way of fitting them was to install a bull bar and to screw them to the frame. So to achieve the safety that he needed on the road, he had to do what he thought to be unsafe and install a bull bar. The rest of the industry has not responded to the Government's attempt to remove bull bars and reduce their number. In fact their number is increasing.
There have been other attempts by the Government to reduce the use of bull bars. In 1992, the Government asked the TRL to consider whether a code of practice could be a way of avoiding the increased risk in the short term until the European directive could be agreed and implemented. The TRL carried out a very limited test programme. It showed that the suggested code was impractical, because a prototype bull bar made to the code gave a worse test result than a standard bar.
Sadly, the TRL, in a letter that was written a week ago today, tells me that it does not see any further research taking place, apart from the police statistics that are being collected, because it does not have a sponsor for further research. It is a side issue, although an important one, but no one has a vested financial interest in saving lives, particularly those of people whose identity we do not know. It would be terrible if the work of the TRL was skewed into serving the motor trade, which is mainly


responsible for encouraging these bars, rather than serving the interest of the future casualties and their families; we need someone to undertake that research.
The insurance companies have been helpful and are concerned. The Norwich Union told me that, when such devices are fitted to vehicles after manufacturing stage as modifications and the appropriate modifications have not been notified to it, it would consider voiding policies if it believed that bull bars had contributed seriously to the accident. The insurance trade is doing a great deal of research in that area. But there seems to be no way out.
In a letter to me in the early part of this year, the Minister suggested that we have to rely on a European directive which is on its way. I shall not give the figure from memory, but the Minister said that a large number of casualties might result from future accidents in the European Community. But we are informed that the directive is unlikely to come through the machinery of the European Union for at least a decade. Commissioner Neil Kinnock assures us that there is no need to wait for that directive, and that we can act now.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is possible for vehicle owners to be required to inform their insurance companies if they make modifications to their vehicles, especially if the result is to make them less roadworthy. There are regulations which the police and others can, enforce for vehicles in an unroadworthy condition. Given that roadworthiness is designed to protect the road user, which should include bicyclists and pedestrians as much as the person inside, should not insurance companies invalidate insurance if bully bars or injury bars are put on the front of vehicles? Is not it open to Government to say that, unless putting a bull bar or bully bar on the front of a vehicle reduces the risks to other road users, such vehicles are unroadworthy?

Mr. Flynn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has a distinguished record in opposing bully bars, as he rightly called them. The Royal Automobile Club has identified two pieces of legislation which can be used now in order to prosecute owners of vehicles with such bars because they are in an unroadworthy condition. There has been one conviction in the Manchester area. That remedy can be taken up immediately.
The suggestion that there can be some kind of soft bull bar was investigated in several countries. Australian researchers came to the conclusion that it is not possible to design a bull bar which is friendly to pedestrians because even a soft bull bar is more dangerous than a standard vehicle. Regardless of the specific design, severe head and pelvic injuries seem to be the inevitable consequence in a collision with a pedestrian where a bull bar is fitted.
During his period as a Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) told us that one of the great improvements in casualty reduction was achieved by making the front of cars pedestrian—friendly so that the front of the car absorbs the force of the collision by giving. Everyone is at more risk from a bull bar, even the driver of the car and his passengers. The effect of a bull bar is to make the car a more rigid object so that the force of the impact, instead of being taken by the body of the car, is taken by the passengers. There are also other disadvantages.
Bull bars certainly pose a greater risk to cyclists and pedestrians. The Pedestrian Association has given me a great deal of information. Pedestrians and cyclists who have written to me feel intimidated by such bars. The psychology of those who add them to vehicles is difficult to understand. They seem to be part of a fashion for having vehicles that look threatening and dominating on the road. They are big and they look aggressive. That fashion has reached unreasonable proportions. A huge number of such vehicles are on the road at the moment, reflecting the growing popularity of bull bars.
Bull bars appear to be a fashion accessory. They in no way add to the safety of vehicles. Not one researcher has come up with the idea that they make a vehicle safer. There is a hallelujah chorus from those with a vested interest in the safety business and other road matters saying that they are highly dangerous and should be banned. The only argument in their favour comes from the farming community. I have already said that a case can be made for their use on farms.
A case can also be made for the jobs provided by the manufacture of bull bars. Nudge bars, as they are called, are manufactured within a few miles of my constituency and almost certainly my constituents are involved in that. One local firm from Gwent has written to the Secretary of State about today's debate. But the interest in those jobs is very much secondary to the interests of future road casualties.
The Minister must tell us today in clear terms what his views are and take this opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement that there is no answer to be found in Europe within the foreseeable future and there is no chance of devising an acceptable bull bar. We know that people will die and hundreds will be injured every month because of the growing fashion for crash bars.
The Government must act now. The Minister has in his hands today the chance to save lives. There is a growing awareness of the danger. I look to local papers, such as the Evening Chronicle (Newcastle) and other papers such as The Independent on Sunday and The Times which have led campaigns on the subject, to highlight every single accident, every death and every serious injury that can be put down to a bull bar. I give an assurance that I will bring to the attention of the House every case that I hear of where a bull bar has resulted in a fatality.
The Minister cannot introduce legislation tomorrow, but he can take the course taken in Manchester, where a man was found guilty of driving a car in a dangerous condition, and ensure that the laws that are there are implemented. Most of all, he can send a clarion call from the House today to warn all those who manufacture bull bars, advertise them or profit from them, who are about to buy them or who already have them on their cars, that the time of such bull bars is limited, that a ban will come in the foreseeable future, so it would be foolish to invest in them now.
We want those who would otherwise choose to have bull bars to avoid the terrible experience that might result. None of us ever expects to collide with a pedestrian but, sadly, it happens. Children run into the road unexpectedly. We want to avoid people suffering the terrible trauma of having the guilt of a death on their consciences and the dreadful agony of bereavement for parents. I ask the Minister to make a clear statement today, not of concern which I know he genuinely has, but of action.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on bringing forward this important subject. As he implies, I welcome the opportunity to outline the present position on the subject and to say how we can take matters forward. I am grateful for the contributions from other hon. Members to this necessarily short debate.
The Government are committed to improving all aspects of road and vehicle safety so as to reduce the terrible toll of deaths and injuries on our roads. We have been concerned for some time now that the fitment of bull bars on road-going vehicles will do nothing to help us meet that objective.
Let us be clear. As the hon. Gentleman suggested in his speech, I suspect that the majority of bull bars currently seen on vehicles are fitted as fashion accessories, as he described them. A macho fashion accessory is an adequate description of what they represent. No one denies that in some off-road circumstances they may be of practical value, but few vehicles which carry them are being regularly used in such circumstances. Therefore, it is difficult to see how they provide any worthwhile benefits.
Some bull bars are quite crude in nature and design. I make it clear that such devices can only be detrimental to the safety of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists who, if they come into contact with a vehicle fitted with such apparatus, will almost certainly suffer more severe injuries. One need only imagine, as has been said, what happens when a child's head comes into contact with a bull bar in the unfortunate event of a collision. Given that both are at the same height, it is not difficult to divine which would come off worse.
The Transport Research Laboratory, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport, West, supports that view. It was asked to carry out impact tests using an instrumented child-size headform and other instrumented impactors on a bull bar, to demonstrate the severity of the possible impact and compare it with the severity of collision with a normal flexible vehicle bonnet. The research showed that, if the fitting of vehicles with bull bars continued unabated, it could result in an extra 35 deaths and 350 serious injuries per annum in the United Kingdom among vulnerable road users.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that, because that research was necessarily based on extrapolation from a proportion of the vehicle population, any underestimate of that proportion could mean a higher figure. I believe that he and I—and, indeed, all other hon. Members—agree that, given the current needless loss of life on our roads, which still amounts to nearly 80 deaths a week, we are not prepared to contemplate 35 more deaths and 350 more serious injuries with equanimity.
Because of those findings, our agreement about the seriousness of the issue and our concern about the increasing use of bull bars, we have taken steps to gather evidence of a slightly different nature—evidence of specific injuries caused on the road by bull bars. Sadly, because of the way in which the police collect accident data, until a recent initiative taken by my Department no specific evidence about the impact of bull bars was available.
Towards the end of 1993, we asked all police forces to identify specific injury accidents during 1994 involving vehicles fitted with bull bars, using the "special studies" box on the normal STATS 19 accident reporting form that the police must complete for every injury accident. Analysis of the information gathered from that exercise will be used to supplement the earlier Transport Research Laboratory estimates, and I expect the results to be known towards the end of the year. We agree, then, that the problem is serious and that we should do all that we can to end such needless loss of life.
The hon. Member for Newport, West asserted that the Government were dragging their heels. I understand why he should make such an assertion, given the frustration that surrounds the issue; but in no sense are we dragging our heels. -Bull bars are not banned in Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, Sweden or any other safety-conscious country; indeed, the United Kingdom is probably ahead of all the others in recognising the seriousness of the problem. Let me add that, if other Europeans were as aware of the safety problems as we are, we should not have to battle so hard in Brussels to win the safety standards that we all want.
We welcome what has been said by Transport Commissioner Kinnock—a friend of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I am delighted to see in his place. I know that he welcomes the elevation of his former right hon. Friend, and sends him his good wishes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Keep it up.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman asks Commissioner Kinnock to "keep it up". No doubt he will ponder that message.
Commissioner Kinnock simply said that, under European law, there was unlikely to be any obstacle to member states' banning bolt-on accessory bull bars. I fear that he actually meant that his directorate, the transport directorate, would experience no difficulty. That is comforting—the same applies to us—but I fear that, as ever when we are dealing with the European Union, it is not the whole story.
This important issue has been raised with me by, for example, Christian Wolmar of The Independent, who—as the hon. Member for Newport, West knows—is rightly concerned. The bull bar itself is not E-marked—marked with a European approval mark, which means that identification of bull bars that are European type-approved would be difficult. Legislation would fail to prevent the use of bull bars on many vehicles, because the more popular vehicles have been type-approved with their optional-bolt-on bull bars fitted at the time of their European type approval. That answers the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). Thus, the vehicle and bull bar are, as a whole, European type-approved. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend—who, as usual, has been hugely helpful to Ministers—that the remedy that he offers would not be available in such circumstances.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The most important thing, surely, is to ensure that fewer vehicles have bully bars, to persuade more vehicle owners to remove them and to make people understand that they are a deliberate threat to others. Can my hon. Friend also tell us why, although


cars are usually constructed so that they collapse to protect those inside, idiots put hard objects on cars that will kill those outside?

Mr. Norris: I am about to deal with that—but it is an important point, and I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.
As I have said, vehicles fitted with bolt-on bull bars have European type approval. I stress that virtually every Member of Parliament—regardless of party or, indeed, absence of party—agrees that the free circulation of European type approved items cannot and should not be impeded within the European Union.

Mr. Flynn: We are aware of the European laws. Under the Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and other legislation, successful prosecutions have already been carried out, and the RAC tells us that legislation already exists in Britain to stop the use of dangerous bull bars on public roads. Why on earth do we not implement that legislation?

Mr. Norris: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman yet again that what he has said is simply not true. Let me assure him unequivocally that, if it were possible to ban such fitments, the Government would not hesitate to do so. The reason why the Government do not do so is that they cannot ban the fitment of items that are

in receipt of European type approval as fitments to vehicles, which receive a number of complex European type approvals.
That is a matter of some frustration for the Government, so we have taken two actions. First, we have pressed the virtue of the new directive on pedestrian protection, which we believe is the way to proceed in such matters. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, it has the virtue of concentrating on the softer front, which is an important part of road safety.
Secondly, we have told manufacturers that although we do not have the power to legislate in this area—as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I know that he is a fair-minded man—they have it within their power to take action now. Some have been prepared to do so openly; others have taken note of what we have said. It is an important area and I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to bear it very much in mind.
We will press not only Commissioner Kinnock but the other directorates within the Community to ensure that this valuable aid to reducing road deaths is proceeded with. I strongly anticipate that it will be the British Government, once again, who will be the first to bring about, in due course, the welcome abolition of this accessory.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

House Building

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to stimulate the building of houses suitable for tenants or buyers on lower incomes. [17876]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): My Department has a housing programme of £6.7 billion this year, which goes mainly to provide new social lettings, to renovate existing housing, and to help finance rent rebates for council tenants. We also finance a number of low-cost home ownership programmes.

Mr. Sheerman: Is that not an appallingly complacent answer from a Minister who knows that in 1979 local councils built 75,600 houses, whereas last year they built just 1,600? Is it not a matter of shame for both the hon. Gentleman and the Government that there are tens of thousands homeless people throughout the country and that people are living in degrading and squalid conditions? Is it not time the Government liberated councils to build the homes that people deserve?

Mr. Curry: Why is the hon. Gentleman so obsessed with houses being built by councils? What is the difference between a house built by a council, one built by a housing association and one built by the private sector? It shows the Labour party's obsession with state ownership and state development. One of the greatest achievements, among others, of this Government has been to put housing associations in the front line in the development of new homes. That is infinitely better and more flexible than house building by councils.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are about 800,000 empty houses in this country and that councils, especially those under Labour control, have a responsibility to bring them into use? Would that not help those on low incomes?

Mr. Curry: It is true that there is a large number of empty homes in both the public and the private sectors. We have a housing partnership programme aimed at bringing them into use. It is also true that, if we could get more of them into use, that would make a significant dent in some of the housing problems.

Mr. Raynsford: Why will the Minister not admit to the true state of housing in Britain today, with house sales last month 14 per cent. down on 1994, 1.25 million home owners trapped in negative equity, repossessions running at 1,000 a week—50,000 a year—councils to all intents and purposes stopped from building new housing, and housing association budgets cut for two years running, thereby reducing the combined output of rented housing by councils and housing associations to the lowest levels since the second world war? Is it not clear that the Government have failed the nation and that they have lost

the confidence of house builders, tenants and home owners alike, and that they should now make way for a Labour Government who will take housing seriously?

Mr. Curry: No.

Right to Buy

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been sold under right to buy legislation. [17905]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): In England, more than 1.23 million homes have been sold under the right to buy. The figure for Great Britain as a whole is more than 1.6 million.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome those figures. Given the success of providing the right to buy to so many people—with the benefits evident throughout the country both in the physical improvements on council estates and in the wider mix of tenures—will my right hon. Friend consider extending the scheme to all housing association tenants, which is a particular issue in London?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say how much the initiative has been welcomed. Under one or other of the schemes, 235 homes a day in Britain are being bought by tenants who are turning themselves into home owners. That is a remarkable achievement and wholly contrary to the rather pathetic comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). However, we want to improve on that number and I am looking carefully at ways to extend the initiative to other people.

Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the total raised from council house sales is about £25 billion— close to the total amount raised from all other privatisations? Instead of frittering that money away, why do the Government not invest it in housing? It was the original plan of the housing spokesman of the Tory party to reinvest in housing, but the Government did not do so. As a result, we have homeless children begging in our streets. Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of that?

Mr. Gummer: Far from frittering it away, the first use of that money was to pay back the debts incurred to build the housing in the first place. The second use was to build other houses. The third use was for other local authority purposes. The concept that the money has been frittered away can be accurate only if the local authorities, many of which are controlled by the Labour party, frittered it away: it was their money and they have spent it.
As a result of the Government's policy on homelessness, fewer than a third of the number of people who were sleeping rough on the streets of London a few years ago do so now. That is the result of spending £129 million on the homeless. The hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts right.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, under the right-to-buy legislation, many more families have a new pride in the ownership of their property, and that the improvements which they make give new confidence and interest in improvements to those living in neighbouring properties? Does he agree that, at this


time, many more families should consider the advantage to them which would be gained by applying to buy the property which they rent at present?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in expressing that view of home ownership. It is precisely what the Government have sought to do. Of course, all the 235 families per day who buy their own homes would not have had the chance to do so if the Labour party had been in control. Labour opposed the right to buy at every point and many Labour candidates put the right to buy in their manifestos as something that they would like to stop.

Contaminated Land

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that the owners of contaminated land make that information available to the public. [17906]

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The contaminated land provisions in part II of the Environment Bill include proposals for local authorities to inspect their areas to identify contaminated land, to assess the seriousness of the contamination using guidelines to be set out by the Secretary of State, and taking into account the advice of the Environment Agency, to decide what should be done by way of remediation.

Mr. Dowd: Does the Secretary of State agree that if green-field and green-belt sites are to be protected from development, we need better to use brown-field and redevelopment sites, and that gaining public confidence in that redevelopment by fully disclosing information is instrumental in achieving that? Leaving aside the Government's historic bias towards commercial interests over the public interest, are the Government so unworthy of trust that they are unprepared to trust the people with the information?

Mr. Atkins: I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to bring contaminated or brown land back into the development cycle. That is why we have coined the phrase "suitable for use" which we talked about yesterday in the debate on the Environment Bill. I expect that in due course the hon. Gentleman and I will find out the extent of that in Committee. The point is surely that those who have caused the problem, either currently or in the past, or those in the same sort of market, are the ones who need to spend the money to rectify the problem. To allay the concerns of the insurance industry, the banks, and so on, we need to ensure that they believe that "suitable for use" means just that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about public registers, powers in the Environment Bill, which we discussed yesterday, will allow greater disclosure. In any case, local authorities have powers now to check and disclose details of contaminated land to those who are interested.

Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that, consequent on the proposals contained in the draft legislation which was before the House yesterday for Second Reading, it is likely that purchasers and others interested in developing a property will be able to gain the

information that they require from normal conveyancing inquiries as well as from the usual inquiries with the local authorities?

Mr. Atkins: Yes.

Strategic Authority for London

Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to reinstate a strategic local authority for London. [17908]

Mr. Gummer: No.

Mr. Banks: I asked the question more in hope than expectation, but when will the Government drop the dead dogma about London and accept what everyone in the public and private sector is saying—that London desperately needs a strategic authority to run it? Why is such a body good enough for every other capital city in the world, but not for London?

Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long love of the Greater London council—so much so that he took its various insignia home to look after them at the end of its time—but he must remember that Paris, for example, has no such authority. It is not true, therefore, that every other capital city has one. The mayor of Paris controls an area which is not the whole of Paris by any means. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is the second time that he has been wrong during this Question Time.
The Government and the Cabinet Committee for London are our strategic authority. We deal with a range of problems throughout London, and the area covered depends on the issue. If one is talking about transport, the old GLC area is far too small. If one is talking about the Thames, it is the wrong shape and the area must go much beyond and below that. If one is talking about the problems of tourism and theatreland one is talking about two or three boroughs in the centre of London. On many of the issues, the sort of strategic authority that the hon. Gentleman wants would have no use and be very expensive and it would be largely opposed by his supporters in the borough councils, who are elected.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the GLC gave London an intolerable bureaucracy, interminable delays and frequent differences of opinion with the London boroughs? Does he accept that outside London people would have looked to the Lord Mayor of London rather than the chairman of the GLC, of whom few, if any, had heard? Does he also accept that, since I became the Member for Hendon, South, I have not received one letter calling for the resurrection of the late and unlamented Greater London council?

Mr. Gummer: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has received no letters. After all, in the last five years of the GLC, it put spending up by 170 per cent. when the total increase in the cost of living was 29 per cent., and it had 20,000 staff and a budget of more than £1 billion. It is difficult today to find anything it did which needed doing.

Mr. Dobson: Why do the Tories refuse to restore to Londoners their right to choose who governs their city? Why do the Government insist on ignoring the views of four out of five Londoners and of the Evening Standard? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that rejection of the rights of Londoners was decided by a Cabinet


sub-committee which includes the chairman of the Tory party? Is that because the Tories are scared stiff to face the voters of London, just as they are running scared of voters in every other part of the country?

Mr. Gummer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman managed to read that out word for word because he does not believe it any more than anyone else in the House, which is why he had to have it written down. The fact is that he is wrong on every point. The GLC did little that is discernible for the good of London and cost it a great deal. The needs of London are much better served by dealing with it as it really is. That is why there are elected borough authorities.
The idea that London—meaning its 32 boroughs—cannot elect its governor can be put forward only by someone who recognises that the Labour party, which runs most of those boroughs, does not act in the interests of the electors but in the interests of the Labour party. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman had to read out his question, lest he be led into the facts, which are that Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey and other examples of Labour London do not give anyone in London any chance to think that it would be better if there were a juggernaut such as the GLC again.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is far better for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to be here entertaining us, rather than being chairman of one of the most profligate local authorities' ever? Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we can expect that great Lutyens building, county hall, to be put to a more profitable use?

Mr. Gummer: I hope that that will happen soon. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the past because it is worth remarking that when the GLC was the so-called "strategic authority for London" it spent only a sixth as much in real terms on the London tube as is spent now that the Government have that role.

Out-of-town Developments

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to when he will publish his review of planning policy guidance concerning out-of-town developments. [17909]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Before the summer recess.

Mr. Heppell: How does the Minister plan to convince local authorities and commercial enterprises that the Government are serious about supporting town and city centres when planning guidance still lacks clarity? Does he agree that any out-of-town development is bound to have a serious effect on town and city centres?

Sir Paul Beresford: I would not absolutely agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, when he said that out-of-town development causes destruction to town and city centres. There is cross-party and local government support for the changes and for PPG6, which shows that local government recognises the positiveness of that report.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an enormous tragedy if we followed the pattern of so many American cities, where all economic

development has shifted out to new shopping malls in the suburbs and city centres have become an economic vacuum? Does he agree that imaginative planning policies can play an important role in preventing such development from taking place?

Sir Paul Beresford: I would certainly agree with that. Indeed, there is probably cross-party support on all the points that my hon. Friend has just made.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, apart from out-of-town centres which have already been built, many planning permissions for out-of-town developments are still outstanding and people are concerned that the stable door is being shut well after the horse has bolted? Will the Department review what it can do to help -town centres regenerate and build investment through local authorities and others to push back the tide in favour of town centres, particularly in communities where town centres are already well down the path of decline?

Sir Paul Beresford: First, given the current number of outstanding planning permissions, the hon. Gentleman's question conveys a sense of doom rather than reality. The reality is very different. Secondly, not only local authorities and planning authorities are involved; the private sector, whose response towards city centres has been very positive so far, is also involved.

Mr. Vaz: Why does the Minister not have the courage to admit that current planning policy is in a state of complete confusion? No sooner is planning guidance issued than it is ridiculed, criticised, withdrawn and subjected to a fundamental review. Will he assure the House that, once that review is completed, the Government will for the first time have a coherent and clear policy on out-of-town development rather than the current mess?

Sir Paul Beresford: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at PPG6 and the revision as it comes forward, he will recognise that the whole basis of his question is wrong.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: While welcoming PPG6 and tentative evidence reported in the Estates Gazette last week that relative values and rents in well managed town centres are rising compared with those in out-of-town shopping centres, will my hon. Friend look closely at an application to extend the Merry Hill centre, which would significantly affect surrounding towns such as Kidderminster, Bromsgrove and Worcester?

Sir Paul Beresford: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to comment directly on a particular issue, but his point has been noted.

Young Single Homeless

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent assessment he has made of the extent of homelessness among young single people in England. [17910]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The assessment of the number of homeless young people and consideration of their housing needs is the responsibility of each local authority.However, in central London the Government's


rough sleepers initiative has been particularly successful in helping young single homeless people. In November 1994, just two under-18s were found sleeping rough there.

Mr. Khabra: Has the Minister had time to read the report recently published by Crisis, a leading charity which cares for single homeless people, which shows that rates of tuberculosis among homeless people are comparable with those in third-world countries? Will he establish a working group to combat that danger and to co-ordinate agencies' work with help for homeless people? Does he agree that homelessness has a link with health? If so, what is his Ministry doing in relation to homeless people?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman asks me to establish a working group. Such a group was established last year under the leadership of the Department of Health. Furthermore, there is a sub-group on homelessness, on which Crisis has a representative. The report is likely to be available in a couple of months' time.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if Labour local authorities collected their rents efficiently and maintained their buildings properly, more houses would be available for homeless people?

Mr. Jones: Efficient use of existing housing stock is one of the most important strategies that any local authority can pursue. We try to encourage them to pursue, that in every possible way.

Mr. Betts: Does the Minister agree, however, that outside London the Government have effectively washed their hands of the problem of homeless young people? The Government have altered the housing benefits arrangements so that in many cases young people are not entitled to benefit. At the same time, those people have no alternative but to go into the private sector. Local authorities which could provide housing for them are denied an opportunity to do so because their capital receipts from housing sales cannot be used to build new homes. Does the Minister have one single initiative outside London to offer those people, who are suffering the most appalling housing and other deprivation?

Mr. Jones: As I have said, responsibility lies with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman is saying that Labour local authorities have washed their hands of the problem. When we judge the housing investment programme submissions of every local authority, we look for evidence that local authorities have proper strategies in place. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising his local authority, he should provide the evidence.

Conservation (Lewes)

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he plans to visit Lewes to discuss conservation matters. [17911]

Sir Paul Beresford: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Lewes at present.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend please pass to his right hon. Friend the regrets at that news and the hope that he will be able to accommodate a visit as soon as possible? When he comes, he will be welcome. While there, will he take advantage of that presence to reassure my constituents that the Government have no plans for

additional dumping of radioactive waste at Beddingham pit in the beautiful Ouse valley south of Lewes? Will he give an assurance that inspectors' reports on the standards maintained at that pit will be published more quickly in the future than they have been in the past?

Mr. Mackinlay: I suppose the hon. Gentleman thinks that they should stick the waste in a working-class area.

Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that an application exists to take the load from my hon. Friend's area and to move it to Thurrock. Leaving that to one side, however, I assure my hon. Friend that there is no dumping. There is disposal of very low-level radioactive waste, which comes from one source only—the university. We are talking about things such as gloves and radioactive wrappings. No plans exist to expand on that. I understand that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is working hard to respond to my hon. Friend's last request to speed up reporting.

Unfit Housing

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in England are unfit for human habitation. [17912]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: According to the statutory definition, in 1991 1.5 million such dwellings existed. Half of those are unfit on only one item, and we estimate that one third of the properties could be made fit for less than £500.

Mr. Bayley: What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of homes that are unfit for human habitation on the health of people who live in them? Are the Government planning to abolish the mandatory framework for grants, which they introduced in 1989, in their forthcoming housing White Paper? If so, what effect will that U-turn in Government policy have on the health of people condemned to live in houses which are unfit for human habitation?

Mr. Jones: We have made no decisions yet about the grant regime and have been consulting about that. Several authorities, primarily Labour controlled, have urged me to ensure that we scrap the mandatory grant system, but we have not reached a conclusion about that yet.

Mr. Sykes: The Minister knows that almost a year has passed since the Richmond hotel, a Department of Social Services hostel in my constituency, was burnt to the ground. Is he aware that there are many such hostels in my constituency, many of which are to the detriment of tourism, which is vital to our prosperity? When will the Minister promise to introduce a scheme to license and regulate those places, so that the unfortunate people who live there can live in safer conditions?

Mr. Jones: We have consulted on houses in multiple occupation, which are usually termed HMOs. The results are now to hand and we hope to announce our decision before long, once we have pulled those results together.

Vauxhall Cross (Regeneration)

Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to help regenerate the area around Vauxhall Cross. [17913]

Sir Paul Beresford: As the hon. Lady is aware, regeneration is a co-operative activity and I look forward to receiving sensible proposals from Lambeth council, businesses in the area and other local organisations. It may also be helpful to her to know that I was minded to allow the appeal on the Effra site, subject to conditions and planning obligations.

Ms Hoey: I thank the Minister. Will he welcome the setting up of a Vauxhall employers group and the work that has initially been done on an SRB bid, or whatever the new name is, for the coming year for the Vauxhall Cross district? Will he also welcome the fact that one of the millennium fund bids will be for the recreation of the Vauxhall pleasure gardens in that district? Does he accept that the Vauxhall district, especially around that intersection between roads and railways, has a thriving local community and that anything he can do to bring together and support the partnership which now exists will be extremely welcome?

Sir Paul Beresford: I look forward to seeing those plans. I am intrigued, as an Edwardian historian has given me a description of the pleasure gardens which raises some rather interesting smirks and question marks.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), can the Minister confirm whether all planning applications for Vauxhall and along the riverside in central London are now as a matter of course brought in for review by his Department, as appears to have been the case in recent months?

Sir Paul Beresford: No, that is not so. It is selective.

Council Estate Improvements

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the financial implications for improvement of council house estates by the move from estate action funding to the single regeneration budget scheme. [17914]

Mr. Curry: About £750 million is expected to be spent through the single regeneration budget in the next three years on estate action commitments. In addition, more than 80 new schemes with significant public and private housing outputs were approved in round 1 of the SRB challenge fund, and will receive about £670 million of investment during their lifetime.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of the changeover to SRB, less money is available to deal with problem housing estates? Are the Government not really bothered about helping people who by choice or by necessity live in council houses?

Mr. Curry: No, I do not accept that, for the following reason. The estate action programmes which are under way will continue and they will see out their life. The new money goes into the challenge process of a single regeneration budget, and the essence of that is that local groups should define their own priorities and needs. Nothing prevents them placing housing at the top of their list of needs. What is more, whereas estate action was a purely physical refurbishment and rebuilding programme,

under the single regeneration budget it is possible to tackle more than one aspect of housing problems, as the successful SRB bid for Burnley is indeed doing.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the concept of the single regeneration budget is an ideal opportunity for small communities such as that on the Isle of Wight to make application for Government funds, especially in places where local councils and councillors concentrate on local issues? In that respect, will he contrast the statements by the leader of the Liberal Democrats on 10 April 1995 in the Southern Daily Echo, where he said that the elections were about local issues and asked people to please judge the councillors according to their record, with what he said when he crossed the Solent to the Isle of Wight, when he said that the elections were about national issues and asked people to please use a double-barrelled shotgun against the Government? Does he agree that, yet again, the leader of the Liberal Democrats is wedded to and inundated with inconsistency?

Mr. Curry: I have observed the same phenomenon in the same gentleman.

London Docklands

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to make an official visit to the London docklands to discuss the prospects for further developments there. [17915]

Mr. Curry: I will meet the chairman of the board of the London docklands development corporation on 20 June to discuss the draft 1995 corporate plan.

Sir Michael Neubert: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive response. Will he confirm that development of London's docklands not only brings long overdue regenerative benefits to east London but materially enhances the potential of our capital city's national assets? In that context, will my hon. Friend lend his support to proposals for a major international exhibition centre at the royal docks to put us on a par with our European rivals?

Mr. Curry: It is very much the Government's intention to have high-quality development in the east Thames and east London area—the same sort of quality that we would find necessary in any other part of the country. As for the exhibition centre, my hon. Friend will know that the development corporation has nominated a consortium, with which it is negotiating. It has until the end of the year to come forward with a scheme that will stand up in financial terms. We have made it clear that that scheme, which I hope will be successful, must stand up with private finance—there is no public subsidy.

Global Warming

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to combat global warming, following the Berlin conference. [17916]

Mr. Gummer: Britain set the pace at the Berlin conference by calling for others to join us in making reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the decade after 2000. This enabled us to take the lead role in producing the Berlin mandate which provides the engine that will


make such reductions possible. We must work hard now to agree, and to get others to agree, real reductions in 1997.

Mr. Flynn: While the Minister is entitled to half a cheer for that complacent answer and for the fact that we are one of only three of the primary emitter countries likely to achieve our targets, does he not agree with the Alliance of Small Nations that the conference was a failure because it lacked any political will and the decisions were short sighted? Does he not know that many areas of this country, including many parts of my constituency, lie under the level of high tide and have to be protected by sea walls? Is it not true that the Government are failing, and the conference failed, to come up with new targets for a reduction in the emission of the gases that cause global warming? Is that not a failure to tackle the most serious problem facing our world civilisation?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. It would be good if we occasionally heard from the hon. Gentleman something congratulatory about his own country—on this occasion, we are leading the world. We shall not only meet our obligations in 2000, but do better than that. We are the country that has taken the lead in the European Union. We have got the European Union to put forward the basis of the agreement for the Berlin mandate.
The facts that the hon. Gentleman quotes are false. The Berlin conference was not a conference to decide on the amounts of reduction, but one to decide on the means by which we would achieve them and to agree that there would be reductions. When we arrived, we found that the United States and many other countries had no intention of signing up to reductions. We managed to bring those countries on board. We have played a key role, and have been helped in that by the support of the Opposition. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman should try to drive a wedge between us. As for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I have the honour to represent a constituency almost all of which will disappear under the sea unless I am successful.

Mr. Fabricant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the moves that he made to produce the Berlin mandate. I also remind the House that it was Baroness Thatcher who initially proposed the Rio summit, the precursor of the Berlin conference. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not get carried away with the single idea that it is greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Many scientists argue that the cause could be sun spots, and that changes in the earth's core could also have an effect on global warming. May I commend to my right hon. Friend an excellent article that was published in The Spectator a few months ago on that very subject?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was the person who most immediately raised the subject in the political debate, as is natural for a Conservative—concern for the next generation is part of our political creed. My hon. Friend would do better to follow my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher's example than that of the article in The Spectator. The truth is that the work that the Meteorological Office and the Hadley Centre have produced clearly shows that analysing historic evidence gives every indication of the link between the emission of

greenhouse gases and global warming. At the very least, we have to say that the signs are so strong that it would be wrong and dangerous to ignore them.

Mr. Bennett: Before the Secretary of State gets too pleased with himself, will he confirm that the Energy Saving Trust originally intended to save 2.5 million tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions but that the Government have so far found no way of financing those savings and enabling the Energy Saving Trust to operate? What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?

Mr. Gummer: I will confirm that we thought originally that we might just reach our target in 2000, and it now looks as though we shall do better than that. Originally, we were not prepared to commit ourselves to reductions after 2000, but we are now committing ourselves to reductions of between 5 and 10 per cent., so long as we can encourage others to work with us, as we are responsible for only 3 per cent. of emissions. The hon. Gentleman underlines the fact that we have done better than we promised, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State agree that the use of cost-benefit analysis in developing policies to combat climate change is, at best, questionable? Is he aware that, as part of the policy development process, economists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change currently propose to ascribe monetary values to American lives that are 10 times greater than those for third-world lives? Will the Secretary of State unequivocally reject that idea and ensure that it plays no part in any policy negotiation process on climate change?

Mr. Gummer: I think that I would want to distinguish between the two parts of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that the cost-benefit analysis applied in those circumstances could be extremely helpful. I cannot think of anything else that would demonstrate so clearly the importance of taking the steps that we are taking and the very considerable damage that would be done to many countries around the world if the climate change that seems possible as a result of man's intervention in gas emission were to occur. It is true that any kind of change would prove very costly indeed, so the benefits of avoiding it are extremely worth while.
I cannot comment on the other matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, but it is quite clear to me that one life is as worthy as another, wherever it may be.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the savings in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have resulted from the increase in electricity production by the nuclear industry? Does he agree that we should promote the greater use of nuclear power within the United Kingdom and that we should support the spread of United Kingdom research overseas in order to establish nuclear power stations in other developed and developing nations?

Mr. Gummer: I am very proud of the nuclear industry, particularly Sizewell B in my constituency. There are many other ways in which we can ensure that we reduce gas emissions in power production. The fact is that we do not get aught for nowt, and there are disadvantages in all methods of power production. However, we must ensure


that we produce power with as little damage to the environment as possible. That is the policy of the Government.

Ms Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Association of Small Island States—the territories most at risk from the threat of global warming—are pressing the developed countries for a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005? Is he further aware that the energy technology support unit of the Department of Trade and Industry believes that a 20 per cent. reduction in energy consumption in Britain is possible with no-regrets policies?
As the Government have had it so easy to date and as the Secretary of State regards himself as a leader, will he now commit the Government and this country to a 20 per cent. reduction in CO, levels by 2005?

Mr. Gummer: I am interested to see that Labour party policy has changed on the issue and that the Labour party has evidently committed itself to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005.

Ms Ruddock: Answer the question.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Lady is asking me to answer the question, no doubt she has already committed her party to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide levels by 2005. She has told the House that such a reduction would be easy and, if it is easy, she clearly wishes to achieve it. Therefore, unless she is prepared to deny in the House that the Labour party intends to go for a 20 per cent. reduction in energy use in this country by 2005, we will have to take that as Labour party policy until there is a public renunciation of her comment. According to the hon. Lady, the target is so easy that it should be accepted. Until I hear something different from her, that is what I shall be saying around the country.

Gloucestershire County Council (Budget)

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to visit shire hall, Gloucester, in the foreseeable future to discuss the county council's budget. [17917]

Mr. Curry: None.

Mr. Knapman: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is unable to visit shire hall in Gloucester, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French)—my right hon. Friend's parliamentary private secretary—will confirm that primary schools in the county are having their budgets cut by an average of between 5 and 6 per cent., and in one case, by 10 per cent., despite an increase in the standard spending assessment permitted spending of 2.6 per cent. My right hon. Friend would also find that grant-maintained schools are being top-sliced by 20.73 per cent., compared with Wiltshire, where the figure is only 16 per cent. In those circumstances, do we not owe it to the pupils of Gloucestershire either to find a more direct and effective means of funding or, sadly, to relax the cap?

Mr. Curry: I rather think that shire hall will be coming to visit us in the next few weeks, because Gloucestershire is one of the counties which we have designated for capping. Gloucestershire must tell us by the end of the month whether it accepts the cap. No doubt it will wish

to come and explain. When it does so, the information which my hon. Friend has given will be useful when we discuss the justification for the budget.

Mr. Nigel Jones: The Minister will be aware that Gloucestershire county councillors will be meeting on Monday to decide whether to appeal against the cap. Is he also aware that the budget that the council has set increases the council tax by nothing at all? It is a standstill council tax. Will he be open to persuasion by the councillors when they come to appeal to have the cap relaxed?

Mr. Curry: I hope that the county will set a budget at the cap that we have indicated. The council has the right to argue why it should be permitted to set a budget higher than the cap. When, and if, the nine local authorities involved come to argue their cases, we shall listen to what they have to say, and we shall ask some searching questions as well. At the end of the process, we shall decide whether to meet the budget that the councils have set, or whether we believe that a different figure would be appropriate.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Why does the Minister think that he and his Government colleagues have a monopoly on the wisdom? It is not simply Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled councils but Tory councils in Gloucestershire, Shropshire and other capped authorities which think that the Government have got it wrong. Why does not the Minister accept that the levels set for Gloucestershire and other counties are far too low to sustain decent services? The Government, not county councillors, should think again.

Mr. Curry: That doctrine is rather more dangerous in practice than it sounds in theory. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that local levels of taxation and local authority expenditure should be set entirely unilaterally by the authorities without the Government taking any view of what is a proper amount in the interests of the economy as a whole. That is a doctrine which even the Labour party would not wish to sustain if it ever came into office.
All Governments must take a view on the total volume of public expenditure. Local authorities contribute a quarter to that, and it is entirely proper that we should determine what we believe to be a sensible level for local authority expenditure while providing the means for authorities to argue why, in particular circumstances, they may need more or that their amount is incorrect. That is a process that we shall undertake over the next few weeks.

Construction Industry

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken within his Department to support his sponsorship of the construction industry. [17918]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department enhanced its capacity and focus for the sponsorship of the construction industry at the end of 1993.
Among other things we have: established with the industry the construction procurement group to help to reduce the UK's trade deficit in construction products; set up the construction benchmarking challenge under which my Department provides financial assistance towards the establishment of four benchmarking clubs; boosted the practical help that we give to UK construction companies


which wish to pursue business overseas. Ministers led six trade missions in 1994 covering 11 countries; and, most importantly, my Department co-sponsored with the industry Sir Michael Latham's report, "Constructing the team", on the procurement and contractual arrangements of the UK construction industry. My Department has also helped set up the Construction Industry Board to implement the recommendations of the report.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the help that he has given to the construction industry. He will be aware that the Latham report published last year was warmly welcomed by the industry. One of the main recommendations of the report was a construction contracts Bill to oversee standard contract conditions and payment terms. When will the consultation paper for that Bill be published so that we can get that much-needed measure on the statute book?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on being the first Member of Parliament in nine months to ask an oral question on the construction industry. That issue is extremely important for the whole industry and we will make sure, provided that there is consensus in the industry, that legislation is brought forward. I shall keep my hon. Friend informed.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister accept that there is wide consensus on the Latham proposals for legislation and for the construction industry Bill? Can the. Minister make a commitment to bring forward such legislation? What discussions has he had with colleagues in other Departments—particularly the Department of Trade and Industry—on whether they also will support legislation?

Mr. Jones: We consult all interested parties. At the moment, there is consensus in the industry and the Government have made it clear that we will be prepared to countenance legislation, provided that there is consensus on its form and impact.

Council Housing Repairs

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that councils repair properties promptly. [17919]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: On 1 April 1994, we introduced the new right-to-repair scheme, which requires councils to carry out repairs covered by the scheme quickly.

Mr. Butler: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, and many tenants welcome the right-to-repair scheme. I invite my hon. Friend to comment on the inordinate and unnecessary delay between tenancies, when properties remain empty for weeks and sometimes months because of incompetent and inefficient local authorities. They are mainly Labour-controlled but, to be fair, some are Liberal-controlled. They seem incapable of having repairs made properly, partly because of their obsession with using direct labour organisations. Can anything be done to reduce waiting lists while cutting the number of empty properties?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are keen to see through the housing investment programme evidence that local authorities are managing their existing housing stock properly. That includes making sure of a quick turnover of properties between

tenants. If my hon. Friend has particular instances in mind, I will be pleased to see that they are raised when considering each local authority's HIP round.

Council Tax Arrears

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the council tax arrears for each inner London borough; and if he will make a statement. [17922]

Mr. Gummer: Council tax arrears for the 12 inner London boroughs at 31 March 1994 totalled £95 million. The worst council was Lambeth with £29.6 million arrears. The four worst local authorities nationally were all in inner London—Lambeth, Hackney, Islington and Southwark.

Mr. Dunn: Given that Labour-controlled inner-London councils are about as effective as a dying duck in a thunderstorm, will my right hon. Friend consider the advice that he might give the people of Dartford on how to avoid the nightmare of Lambeth?

Mr. Gummer: Dartford is one of the councils with an extremely good record of debt collection, and therefore is able to provide for council tax payers and others living in the borough an extremely good service at a reasonable price. The answer is clear. If one wants authorities of the sort found in inner London, such as Lambeth, Hackney, Islington and Southwark, vote Labour. If one wants a decent authority, such as Dartford, vote Conservative.

Local Authority Staff

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of delegated legislation on the numbers of staff employed by local authorities in each of the last three years. [17924]

Mr. Curry: Changes in requirements arising from transfers of responsibilities, as well as changes in costs through efficiency, are discussed with local authority associations. The consequences for staffing is a matter for councils.

Mr. Steen: Is not the whole problem that we pass legislation and expect local authorities to observe the duties that we impose on them, without properly working out how much money they need? Surely the right way forward is a cost compliance assessment of all legislation passed, such as yesterday's Environment Bill, so that we do not impose on local authorities duties that they cannot afford to observe. Is that not the nub of the problem?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a constant demand that we entrust local authorities to do more. There are complaints whenever it is suggested that we are asking them to do less. It is important, therefore, that when they get new responsibilities the costs of them are evaluated properly. We undertake such evaluations with the local authority associations. The SSA system is designed to enable that to be done. If responsibilities are transferred within Government, transfers will follow that. We are following my hon. Friend's injunction.

Carbon Monoxide Emissions

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what current initiatives his Department is


following to lessen carbon monoxide emissions in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [17925]

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published in January a statement of the Government's strategic policies for air quality management.
On the basis of those policies, national emissions of carbon monoxide are expect to drop by 36 per cent. by 2000 and by 56 per cent. by 2010, compared with present levels.

Mr. Llwyd: Is not the Minister being rather complacent? Surely it is time that the Government grasped the nettle and considered what is happening in other countries. For example, there is limited use now of private vehicles in Athens. Is it not time that the Government stopped slapping their own backs and saying that they are doing something, and started getting on with the job? We all know that pollution comes from conurbations, where often there is only one person in each car. Let us get better public transport and see an end to all that.

Mr. Atkins: Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is being complacent if he does not understand the facts of life in the context at least of air quality. The most recent figures available to us show that the World Health Organisation's standards of one hour, 30 minutes or 15 minutes on, carbon monoxide were not exceeded anywhere in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman heard in my first answer, the future is just as bright.

Housing Association Dwellings

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the ability of those on low incomes to afford the rent of new housing association dwellings. [17926]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The most recent analysis of affordability carried out by the Housing Corporation for the year 1992–93 demonstrates that, on average, tenants spent approximately 10 per cent. of their net income on rent for a newly completed housing association dwelling. Tenants who are in work spent approximately 18 per cent. of their net income on rent.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the Minister accept that the reduction of housing association grant to levels that even the Association of Mortgage Lenders describes as unrealistic means that many new housing association dwellings are now being let or put on offer at over £70 a week, which means that they are unaffordable for people who are not eligible for housing benefit? Is not the shift of subsidy from bricks and mortar to means-tested benefit leading to more dependency? Is that not proving more costly to the public purse in the long run?

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Of course there is a relationship between the subsidy to bricks and mortar, which on average is just under 60 per cent., and the subsidy to individuals through housing benefit. Naturally enough, where the two meet there is likely to be a problem in terms of a poverty trap. That is something that we keep under constant review. There has been no shortage of projects coming forward under the present rates. I should

point out to the hon. Lady that all but 2 per cent. of the fall in housing association grant rates has been accounted for by falls in procurement costs.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a problem? I sit on the board of the Templar Housing Society Ltd., which is implementing—it says that it is forced to do so—an increase in rents of about £34 to £35 a month. Representations have been made to me by people on the state retirement pension, who have had only a small pension increase. They say that the increase in their housing costs are likely to exceed any increase in the old-age pension. Will not my hon. Friend consider these matters a little more carefully, perhaps understand that there is a problem and say that he will consider it? Perhaps I can write to him about the housing society of which I am a member.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is welcome to write to me at any time about any subject that falls within my responsibilities. It sounds to me, from the instance that he gave, as if he is talking about pensioners with private pensions in addition to their state pension. We keep those matters under review, and, as I said during the last Environment Question Time, we are in contact with other interested Departments, including the Department of Social Security, about the interplay between housing benefits and HAG rates.

Propaganda Expenditure

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the spending of money by councils on propaganda. [17927]

Mr. Curry: I am against it.

Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that, immediately after the Lib-Lab pact took over Kent county council, it diverted £100,000 of the education funding to a propaganda campaign against grant-maintained schools in the county? Is he further aware that, when I asked it how much that had cost to date, because we are two years on, it refused to divulge that figure, which may now be as high as £250,000? Does he not think that that money would be far better spent on the education of our children?

Mr. Curry: There is a real problem with the ability of district auditors in particular to keep an effective check on local authority expenditure. The rules are quite clear on what local authorities can spend money in terms of information and propaganda. The trouble is that it depends on citizens bringing a complaint to the district auditor, and then the investigation takes place retroactively. That causes some difficulties, and it would be worth while, seeing, without in any way compromising the independence of the auditors, how we could give local people a more effective survey of the way in which the local authority spends money in their name.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the Government spend a lot of money on propaganda as well? A question costs about £100 to answer, and if the Minister studies the Order Paper for any given week, he will find that, as more than


50 Tory Members of Parliament ask planted questions, more than £5,000 is being spent by the Government to give out information on their own behalf.

Mr. Curry: In that case, it is rather curious that, whenever we answer an Opposition question by saying that it would cost a disproportionate amount to answer, Opposition Members get very indignant.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no standard spending assessment for local authority information departments and therefore that any money that local authorities spend on propaganda, or, indeed, information officers or press officers, is spent at the cost of the resources to other services? If county councils have that as their priority, their priority is not providing front-line services.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. We think that it is quite right that local authorities should inform their electorates of what they are doing. That is a perfectly proper activity. Indeed, if the information is not given, it is difficult to assess the performance. We wish local people to be able to assess the performance of local authorities. We have done a great deal to place before people more evidence of performance, but at the end of the day we must depend on the good sense and integrity of local authorities to draw a sensible line between what really is information to the electorate and what is nothing less than propaganda. As I said in a previous answer, I' am not yet satisfied that that line is drawn sharply or clearly enough.

Water and Sewerage Charges

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of the current year's price increase for water and sewerage. [17928]

Mr. Atkins: The price increases will enable water companies to continue their investment programmes to fulfil their legal obligations to meet improved water quality and environmental standards.

Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that this year's price increase will take more than 30 per cent. of this year's benefit increase and will therefore put people, particularly those who are on low incomes and benefit, in

even more hardship than they were before? Will he take the opportunity today to urge water companies around the country to give a payback to their customers for the price increases over inflation that they have imposed on them, as North West Water has done this year? Will he suggest that all other water companies in the country follow its example?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to congratulate my own regional water company, North West Water, on the results of its efficiencies and the effects of privatisation, which have done so much, and on offering a payback to my constituents and to many other payers. I would encourage every other water company to do the same as North West Water. The hon. Lady made a point about the more vulnerable members of society, and I join her in encouraging water companies to pay as much attention as possible to the needs of those people in terms of the schemes that they offer for the payment of water costs, and where necessary in providing cheap water meters.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister approve of the decision of Anglian Water to raise charges for people who are not receiving metered supplies but to hold down the price that is charged to people receiving metered supplies, or do the Government approve of that effort to blackmail people into taking water meters that they would not otherwise want?

Mr. Atkins: As many hon. Members will understand, the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate what is involved in the setting of water charges. He benefits, in the Thames region, from one of the best and cheapest supplies of water anywhere in the United Kingdom. Water companies throughout the United Kingdom invest a lot of money. They appreciate that the quality of water has to be improved as a result of directives from the European Union. All that costs money, which must come from the customer as well as the marketplace.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I shall take points of order after the statement.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Madam Speaker: I am sorry, it is too late now. It is 3.30 pm.

Stormont Fire (Doyle Report)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the report by Sir Reginald Doyle on the fire which took place on 2 January 1995 at Parliament buildings, Stormont, and the implications of that incident for fire safety precautions at other Crown buildings in Northern Ireland.
I have this morning placed copies of Sir Reginald's report in the Library of the House, and in the Vote Office.
Although I am glad to note that Sir Reginald has concluded that the overall standard of staff safety in Crown buildings is generally satisfactory, his report points up serious shortcomings, both in relation to the Parliament buildings fire itself and to wider procedures dealing with fire safety matters. Several of his findings are deeply disturbing, and I am determined to address the shortcomings in the most serious manner.
Sir Reginald's view is that the most likely cause of the fire at Parliament buildings was an electrical fault in the wiring below the Speaker's chair in the Commons chamber. He considers that it is improbable that the fire was started deliberately. His conclusion on the cause of the fire is in accordance with the findings of the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory, assisted by an, independent electrical consultant.
A number of matters relating to the fire give me very serious concern. First, the watchkeepers in Parliament buildings did not detect the fire and incorrectly attributed an unusual smell to new lagging on heating pipes.
Secondly, part of the first floor of the building was not patrolled because one section was subject to restricted access from 1992 as it had been set aside for political talks.
Thirdly, there was no water supply to the fire hydrant system at Parliament buildings when the fire broke out owing to a valve at the Stormont reservoir having been closed, despite the fact that non-availability of water had been reported 18 days before the fire to the Department of the Environment staff.
Fourthly, over a period of nearly five years, there was no fire drill in Parliament buildings even though there was official guidance that a fire drill should be carried out at least once every 12 months.
Finally, some fire brigade appliances did not approach the building by the agreed access—Massey avenue—but approached it by the Upper Newtownards road entrance, which was locked on 2 January 1995 as that date was a public holiday. I shall deal with those in turn.
The watchkeepers have been interviewed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Reginald Doyle and their personnel officer in the Department of Finance and Personnel. They reported that on their regular patrols of the building they found no evidence of fire. Their written instructions are being revised with regard to the timing of patrols, the reporting of unusual circumstances and access to all parts of the building.
Further investigations have shown that, in addition to part of the first floor being inaccessible, the Commons chamber itself has customarily been regarded by the watchkeepers as outside their remit because it was normally locked. It is clearly wrong that any portion of

the building should have been inaccessible to the watchkeepers. This has been rectified, and the management of the entire building has now been made the responsibility of a single Department, the Department of the Environment.
As for the absence of water in the fire hydrant system, it is clear that no action was taken to seek out the cause and to restore the supply following reports on 15 December 1994 that the system was dry. Three officials have been reprimanded. In addition, the Department of the Environment has reminded the contractor and the consultant responsible for the current contract at Parliament buildings of their continuing obligations in respect of maintenance of existing services and installations during the period of the contract. Sir Reginald notes that, by chance, the lack of water at the building was not a significant issue, owing to the prompt action of the fire brigade.
On the question of fire drills, there can of course be difficulty in setting a convenient date for a trial evacuation in a building that is often used for meetings with the public, but a gap of five years is inexcusable. It indicates that fire precautions were not accorded proper priority by management in Parliament buildings. I have taken steps to ensure that those responsible for these matters in all Crown buildings in Northern Ireland are in no doubt about their responsibilities, and of my continuing concern that those responsibilities are properly exercised. An accelerated training programme for premises officers is being implemented by the works service of the Department of the Environment; Departments have been reminded of their obligation to comply with the fire precautions guide, which provides advice on fire safety matters. Some aspects of the guide require revision or clarification, and that work has been initiated.
On the question of access, the fire brigade has been reminded of the agreed access route. Sir Reginald finds that, in the event, the resulting delay amounted to less than one minute.
The cost of restoring the Commons chamber as it was is estimated at about £1.5 million. I have authorised the Department of the Environment to proceed with the work, which will be part of a general refurbishment of Parliament buildings extending over two years at a cost of £20 million.
It is clear from the report that fire safety precautions have simply not been given a sufficiently high priority. As Secretary of State, I greatly regret that. Sir Reginald notes that at the time of the fire a refurbishment scheme for Parliament buildings had been under way since February 1994, concentrating on health and safety and fire precaution work. That programme had been extracted from a more extensive and general programme identified in the mid 1980s, but delayed first because of the need to relocate DOE staff into other accommodation and latterly because of other financial priorities.
Obvious difficulties are involved in arranging the refurbishment of aging but heavily used public buildings, but I accept that Government are responsible for doing it in order to ensure proper health and safety standards. Sir Reginald comments that fire safety work, once identified as necessary, should be carried out as a matter of urgency and should not be allowed to wait until it can be incorporated in a wider refurbishment scheme. I accept


that, and have made it clear to all Departments that health and safety provision is of such fundamental importance that it must merit high priority in expenditure plans.
I have accepted all Sir Reginald's recommendations, and have instructed a senior official in the Department of the Environment to ensure their urgent implementation and report progress to me on a quarterly basis. A task force under his chairmanship has been established, and has already met on three occasions.
Sir Reginald indicates that the overall standard of staff safety in Crown buildings provided by fire alarms, escape routes, the protection of escape routes, fire extinguishers, hose reels and other means is generally satisfactory. However, he considers that the legislation for Crown buildings is not satisfactory, and recommends alternative informal safeguards to ensure that Crown buildings comply with the standards set out in the Fire Services Order (NI) 1984. That recommendation is accepted, and applications for all certifiable buildings are being submitted on an accelerated—but also prioritised—basis. The objective is to have complete certification coverage within two years. A comprehensive and definitive list of all Crown buildings requiring certification is being compiled.
For the protection of the fabric of buildings, modern fire detection systems will be installed on a phased and, prioritised basis in buildings where it is considered necessary. In addition, an urgent review has been initiated to identify buildings in which the installation of sprinklers or gas flood systems might be justified.
I am grateful to Sir Reginald Doyle for his report, which I believe will lead—through the implementation of his recommendations—to a general improvement in fire safety arrangements in all Crown buildings in Northern Ireland.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I want to express our thanks for the courage and professionalism of those who tackled the blaze, especially the police and the firefighters. We are greatly relieved that the fire did not result in loss of life.
I agree with the Secretary of State about the recommendations in the report, which is deeply disturbing. I am pleased that he is determined to address the shortcomings in policy. I am equally pleased that he accepts that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure proper health and safety standards. It is sad that it has taken a fire to make those policy shortcomings transparent.
It is clear from Sir Reginald Doyle's comments that the Government's responsibility to protect public property and individual safety has been neglected in Northern Ireland. The exemption of Crown properties from the formal obligations under the Fire Services Order (Northern Ireland) 1984 should not stop the Government ensuring that buildings are kept up to the necessary standards. At a minimum, those standards require adequate means of escape for staff, means for ensuring that the escape can be used at all material times, means of giving warning and means of firefighting.
As the Secretary of State explained, the fire probably went undetected for as long as eight hours, the staff patrol bypassed the area, the new detection system was not connected and there was no water supply at the hydrants.
The alarm and firefighting provisions at Stormont castle were inadequate at the time of the fire and it is clear that the minimum standards were not complied with.
I want to ask four specific and direct questions. First, the report refers to the Government's review of fire safety legislation and enforcement. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the report said that there was
no reason why the Government should not announce that in future fire precautions legislation
will apply to Crown properties. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House why the Government have made no specific response to that recommendation, which was made last summer? Will he now make it clear to the House that none of the more than 1,000 Crown buildings in Northern Ireland will be immune from fire and health and safety regulations?
Secondly, the Secretary of State announced that he will publish a quarterly report, to be produced by the Department of the Environment, on the implementation of Sir Reginald's recommendations. At the same time, will he tell us the date on which he will publish a list of all the Crown buildings requiring certification? Thirdly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommend the reallocation of funds within the Department of Economic Development to respond to the four-year backlog of buildings waiting to be inspected?
Finally, the report also refers to the lack of awareness of contractors about where their specific responsibilities lay. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government's policy for restructuring Departments and for contracting out services has led to confusion and a lack of transparency and accountability between those who make policy and those who implement it? What recommendations will he make to alleviate that chaos?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her tribute to those who tackled the fire so extremely effectively. As Sir Reginald Doyle pointed out, it was only their very prompt action that saved the building from much worse damage, because there was no water in the hydrants. I am also grateful for the hon. Lady's endorsement of the Government's approach to this serious report.
The hon. Lady referred to exemptions for Crown buildings from the Fire Services Order (Northen Ireland) 1984, which is the legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. It relates to the first of her specific questions. There are difficulties inherent in applying that legislation, with its sanctions, to Crown buildings. These are matters of policy for the Home Secretary in Great Britain and for me in Northern Ireland and I should like to reflect on the matter and consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the quarterly report that I mentioned and about the progress being made by the task force. I did not say that I would publish the quarterly reports and I do not think that to do so would be necessarily appropriate. What is important is that they are made quarterly, because regular progress and regular monitoring are necessary.
I believe that the third of the hon. Lady's questions—she will correct me if I am wrong—was about the list of buildings that have acquired certification. I have said that our target is that work on the whole backlog shall be


completed in two years. Of course I shall be perfectly prepared at any time to answer questions about the progress that is being made.
The hon. Lady's last question was about contractual obligations. I am not aware of any standard form of contractual obligation. I am given to understand that in this case there was a clear contractual obligation to maintain existing services on the part of the consultant and the contractor. As I have said to the House, each has been reminded of the importance of those obligations during the currency of the contract.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I join the Secretary of State in thanking Sir Reginald Doyle for a useful and thorough report and, on a personal level, for the courtesy that he extended to me when I provided him with evidence and proposals. I also join the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), in congratulating the RUC and in particular the fire brigade, whose professionalism stemmed the spread of the fire.
I welcome three things that the Secretary of State said in his statement. First, I welcome the undertaking that he is determined to remedy the shortcomings. Will he specifically state whether he is prepared to do so immediately in financial terms? We need more fire inspectors on the ground to reduce the length of time that it will take to inspect all Crown buildings. We need the resources to make the necessary changes to Crown buildings that the inspection report identified.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that he intends to restore the Commons chamber at Stormont. Will he confirm that it will be restored as closely as contractually possible to its former glory with all, let us say, the British trappings that it had previously? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he says that fire precautions were not given sufficiently high priority, it was because complacency had trickled down from the highest level to produce the incompetence that the report suggests?
For more than 18 months I have raised issues relating to fire safety in Crown buildings. They have been virtually ignored at the very highest levels. If heads are to roll on Stormont lawn, let there be some easily recognised heads among them.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to Sir Reginald Doyle and to the RUC and the fire brigade. That will be much appreciated. I also welcome what he had to say in the remainder of the first part of his question. He asked whether there would be practical expression of my determination to see the recommendations fulfilled, whether resources would be made available. The answer is yes, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient resources are available to fulfil what I have said. In particular, we intend to recruit an additional four ex-fire brigade officers to the fire inspection branch of the work service which has these responsibilities.
It is appropriate for me to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the assiduity with which over a considerable period he has raised the safety of staff in the context of fire precautions. He will, I know, be as glad as I am that Sir Reginald has made the general finding that he has on the safety of staff—that it was generally satisfactory throughout the Government estate. However, that is not to underestimate the criticisms that have been made. As the Secretary of State, I of course take

responsibility for that. It is of great importance that the problems should be rectified. It is of great value that we have a report of this thoroughness.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Although the work of the emergency services in rescuing the building from a terrible fire was remarkable, was there not an appalling level of laxity in the management and care of the buildings, which is all the more worrying when security risks have meant that heightened awareness has been necessary all the time? In looking forward to the refurbishment of the building and its occupation by a democratic assembly serving the people of Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State also look forward with some confidence to a building that will be looked after properly and with a continued level of awareness of risk appropriate- to its importance and to the dangers to the people using it?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the services. Naturally, there have been shortcomings in the management of the Parliament buildings. In part, that has been due to a division of responsibility. As from noon today, the Department of the Environment has attained full responsibility for the management of that building. That division led to the misunderstandings and lack of communication that were apparent in the instructions to the watchkeepers and their understanding of those instructions, for example.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about the chamber enables me to reply to one of the questions of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which I omitted to do. It is my intention to restore the chamber to its former position and state, but that will be subject to representations that parties—whether political or otherwise—may make to me, especially in the context of a possible assembly, which everyone hopes will come into being. That is the contingent intention, but it is open to that qualification. I believe that, as a result of this inquiry, we shall have a much tighter management, which is desirable for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his swift response in accepting full responsibility for this report and the events that led up to the fire? May I also add that it is entirely characteristic of my right hon. and learned Friend to accept the blame and not to duck it in any way? When does he expect the work to start?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To be perfectly frank, there are not many grounds for congratulation in this story, but she has characteristically found one—perhaps the only one. The work on restoration of the Commons chamber is already under way and I am told that the refurbishment programme for the whole of Parliament Buildings should take about two years.

Mr. John D. Taylor: May I declare an interest, Madam Speaker, as chairman of a company that owns one of the properties listed in the report? The Parliament building at Stormont is of importance in Northern Ireland and of architectural and historical interest. It is also a listed building. Hon. and right hon. Members who have visited it cannot but be impressed at the entire building and its location and setting outside Belfast.


I join other hon. Members in placing on record our thanks to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland fire brigade for their prompt attention to the fire. It should be placed on record that the fire brigade was called at 9.5 in the morning. Even with the difficulties presented to it, the brigade gained access and was on the spot at 9.12.
We have heard that the fire might well have been caused by an electric wire under the Speaker's chair. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman conclude that there was no criminal or terrorist-related involvement in the fire? If so, can he confirm whether all the workmen involved in the work in the Chamber at the time were screened? The fire was detected by a member of the public at 8.50 in the morning. The patrol within the building had checked it only 30 minutes beforehand, yet the fire had been going for some eight hours. It seems most unusual that the patrol had not observed a fire that had been smouldering away for eight hours but that a member of the public out for a walk with his dog should have noticed it outside.
We now hear that one reason why the security patrol within the building did not observe the fire was that it was not allowed to enter parts of the building because of political talks going on in that section of the building. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the security patrol within the building walked along the corridor that passes the main door into the House of Commons chamber? That is the key question. How close did they get to the location of the fire?
It is outrageous that no fire drill had taken place for the past five years in Parliament buildings at Stormont, and it is incredible that that is confirmed in the report. There has certainly been a degree of incompetence. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) had a question listed on yesterday's Order Paper asking whether the chamber would be restored and the estimated price of that restoration. Unfortunately, that question was not answered, but we have had the reply in today's statement. As the Secretary of State knows the estimated cost, he must have some idea about the design for the new chamber. Will it be designed to accommodate a parliament, a legislative or administrative assembly, or a regional authority? He must be in a position to answer that question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is not a debate. It is questions to the Secretary of State on his statement and I should be grateful if he would come to some pertinent questions so that we might hear a response from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Taylor: I am trying to find out what kind of chamber will be rebuilt now that the Secretary of State has confirmed that it will be restored.
I shall move on to the subject of the lack of fire certificates for Crown buildings throughout Northern Ireland. Why will it not become a legal requirement that Crown buildings have fire certificates, as private owners in Northern Ireland must have? In that connection, I refer the Secretary of State to paragraph 10.4 on page 53 of the report, which says that sufficient resources do not exist and that it will take at least four years for the buildings to be examined.
That means that civil servants will have to work in dangerous conditions for many more years, because, even after the four years, the work must then be carried out. In relation to paragraph 10.14, why cannot the fire brigade in Northern Ireland be responsible for inspecting Crown buildings and deciding on the issue of fire certificates, rather than retaining that power within the Department of the Environment?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the services. He asked whether I had definitely concluded that the fire was accidental rather than deliberate. I can go only on the evidence that has been given to Sir Reginald and on his conclusion, which is set out at paragraph 3.5.9, that it is improbable that the fire was started deliberately. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the photograph of wiring beneath or close to the Speaker's chair, the insulation of which appears to have been eroded, and the course that the fire took is consistent with that. I can go no further than that of my own knowledge.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the workmen engaged in the refurbishment scheme, which had been going on since February 1994, had been screened. I am told that each workman had been screened for security clearance. He also asked whether the watchkeepers walked past the door. I understand that that was the evidence given to Sir Reginald, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that Sir Reginald also says that the fire broke out in the one room or chamber in Parliament buildings least likely to result in a warning being made apparent to people because it had no open windows and the doors were very close-fitting.
Reference is made to the fact that the doors, being so stout and close-fitting, confined the fire's spread. It is a remarkable feature of the story, however, that those watchkeepers did not notice, over a period apparently of some eight hours, that a fire was going on. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that they attributed a curious smell to some lagging that had been placed on pipes. I cannot take the matter further than that.
I have already dealt with the design of the restored Commons chamber. I do not want to add to anything that I have said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). On certification, the position is—I think I have this correct—that Crown buildings must have a certificate, but no legal requirement exists for an application for such a certificate to be made under the Fire Service Order (Northern Ireland) 1984. I am, of course, prepared to consider the legislation following what Sir Reginald and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) have said about that matter. The important thing is that certification is carried out. That has been the practice, albeit with insufficient sense of urgency, as I must concede.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I have already said that it is not a question of four years being the target. He referred to paragraph 10.4 of the report. I have said that the target for total certification of the Government estate is two years.

Mr. Mark Robinson: It may be belated, but the Doyle report is still extremely welcome by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. and learned Friend just clarify that he intends to implement all the report's recommendations?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the Secretary of State, as a UK Cabinet Minister, care to speculate as to how many people in Scotland and England who are responsible for Government buildings muttered under their breath sotto voce, when they heard of the Stormont fire, "There but for the grace of God went we"?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Fortunately, I have enough responsibilities without acquiring responsibility for this place. I do not want to take that matter any further.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he had to read to us a most disturbing catalogue of errors and omissions? Does he perhaps think that, in recent years in Northern Ireland, it has been necessary for security to take such a high priority that other matters have been subordinated to it?
Has my right hon. and learned Friend ever heard in Northern Ireland a local resident say to him, "Things are different over here, Minister"? Does he agree that that must not mean that standards are lower? In groping to find some way to ensure that standards are the same throughout the UK, might it be appropriate to have a slightly higher level of roulement between officials and inspectors in the UK to ensure that standards are uniformly high?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend makes a most interesting suggestion. Of course, the House remembers his long experience as a Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland. It is important that Northern Ireland's standards should be no less satisfactory than those in the rest of the UK. This Administration intend to ensure that that is the case. I do not know whether the lifeline that he threw me—the need for concentration on security—has led to the laxity. All that has to be said, grateful though I am, is that that laxity has ended and must never be allowed to return.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Secretary of State? As responsibility for fire protection has gone to the Department of the Environment, is he satisfied that it is able to deal with that, bearing in mind that some of us are concerned that departmental officials' guidance to local councils on fire regulation standards in new building is still being debated?
May I press the Secretary of State on the concept of finances? I recognise that he may not be able to give me the answers today, but will he tell us—the answer may even be available in the Library—the amount of money returned from the Northern Ireland budget at a time when not enough money was available to deal with recommendations to protect from fire? Will he tell us how that now compares with the amount that the nation will have to spend on repairing the damage?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I wish to look at the point with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question. I want to give him an assurance that both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), and I will closely consider the Department of the Environment and its capacity to undertake those very important responsibilities.

Points of Order

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of which I have given you and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs notice. It relates to the proceedings of Standing Committee B on immigration and border controls on 22 March 1995, and the way in which the motion that was agreed by that Standing Committee was unilaterally amended, without advance notice being given to the House or to hon. Members attending the Committee by the Home Secretary.
That is a slightly complicated issue, as you know, Madam Speaker. I shall do my best to deal with it briefly.
The 29th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation recommended that the issue of European immigration and border controls was so important that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government chose, for reasons of their own, not to debate it here but instead to send it upstairs to Committee. There, on 22 March, a vigorous debate did take place. A motion tabled by my hon. Friends was defeated by six votes to seven, and the Government motion was approved without Division.
Everyone assumed, in the terms of the face of Standing Order No. 102, that that motion, approved by Standing Committee B, would come before the House unamended and would then be voted on forthwith.
On 6 April, the day after the House had risen, I received in my mail—and I was there when it was opened—a letter from the Home Secretary's private secretary, to say that the Home Secretary had decided to amend the motion of Standing Committee B in three particulars.
Because of the way in which the letter from the private secretary is phrased, I assumed at least that I and other Members attending that Committee would be given advance notice of the Government's intention, but I subsequently discovered that the amended motion had been tabled on the Order Paper on 4 April, and had been nodded through without debate on 5 April.

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): Where were you?

Mr. Straw: The Whip asks, where was I? In spite of the fact that I assiduously check the Order Paper every day, there was absolutely no indication on the Order Paper that the motion from Standing Committee B had been amended in the way that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had proposed.
My point of order to you, Madam Speaker, is as follows. First, is it in order for Ministers to act in that way, unilaterally amending motions from Standing Committees? Secondly, even if it is in order, would you agree that it is unacceptable to treat hon. Members in the way that the Home Secretary treated hon. Members on both sides of the House, by ensuring that no hon. Member was given notice until after the motion had gone down? Lastly, would you accept that, if that practice is ever exercised again, there must be on the face of the Order Paper a clear indication that the Government are changing the terms of the Standing Committee's motion?

Madam Speaker: The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is covered by Standing Order No. 102(9).
What has happened in this case may be unusual, but it is clearly within the terms of that Standing Order. In fact, the Standing Order does not lay down that the motion tabled in the House must be the same as that agreed to in the European Standing Committee. It does lay down that the motion in the House, and any amendment selected by the Speaker, has to be put forthwith without debate.
The procedure is, in fact, not unprecedented, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is flawed, or that it has irregularities, he may wish to ask the Procedure Committee to have another look at it in case of any future occurrence. Perhaps he will consider that very seriously, and adopt that course of action.

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you—my final point comes directly within your remit, not that of the Procedure Committee. Would you be willing to make it clear that, when Ministers act in that way, they should ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are told in advance?

Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House knows that I am always in favour of the House knowing precisely what is taking place in the House and in Standing Committees. I ask Ministers to give full notice to the House and those involved of what action is being taken.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a slightly less controversial point of order, Madam Speaker. May I express the relief which is no doubt shared on both sides of the House that you managed to escape from the mud of Morocco? You may well find that the mules that came to your rescue by swimming the river were easier to handle than some of the Members of Parliament.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I returned in good form, as she is no doubt aware.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have here a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland which has been circulated to a large number of individuals in the Perth and Kinross constituency. It states:
Until a successor is elected, the hon. Michael Forsyth MP has been asked to represent your interests in Parliament.
Can you confirm that, under the terms of our procedures, no one but an elected Member can represent a constituency in Parliament?
Given that it is now two months since the vacancy occurred, would it not be a better idea if the Government moved the writ for the by-election and let the people of Perth and Kinross choose who is to be their Member of Parliament, rather than attempting to foist the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on an unwilling population?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that no one can represent a constituent in Parliament unless he or she is an elected Member. Whatever arrangements may be made locally in the area or by political parties are not a matter for the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: You will know, Madam Speaker, that for some time I have been attempting to get the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, my private Member's Bill, into Committee. That has now

been achieved, and the Bill will be in Committee next week. But that is not the end of the procedural problems I face. You will also remember that last year, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill faced considerable problems on the Floor of the House, which led to criticisms of two hon. Members in particular.
Following the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) did not, as he was entitled to do, select this Friday for the Report stage of his Bill. Instead, he chose the following Friday—the fifth Friday, the final Friday, for the Report stage of private Members' Bills.
If my Bill, which is going into Committee next week, were able to complete its Committee stage in that time, I could have asked for it to be dealt with on Report on that Friday, so that it could then go to another place. That now becomes unlikely, as my Bill will be placed in second position by the actions of the hon. Member for Rochford. That is as serious as the blocking measures that took place last year, and is part of a procedure that has been taking place in a number of Committees, including Standing Committee C, in order to prevent other Bills from making progress.
Are the matters that have taken place in Standing Committee C, especially in connection with the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, in order? If they are, are such practices seen as acceptable, or should we look for another method, so that private Member's who do well in the ballot, and whose measures are well supported in the House and in the country, are given the opportunity for those measures to be debated and voted on in the House?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Let me respond to the point of order.
I think that I understand what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. As far as I am aware, what has taken place in Standing Committee C is perfectly in order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the delay being experienced by his Bill. I can tell him honestly that there is virtually nothing that I as Speaker can do. He and other hon. Members in the House are well aware of the ways and means of getting things done and not getting things done in the House. It is matter for the business managers of the House. If I can help the hon. Gentleman, I shall certainly try to do so.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the whole House wishes to thank you for what you have just said. I think that you will recall that the House did not distinguish itself last year when we witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of the Government Front Bench and of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
The Government are clearly manipulating the functions of the House for a third year so that they can block the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There is no reason why the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) could not have put his Bill, which left Committee this morning, before the House on Friday. That would have allowed the House to consider both his Bill and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). Is it not an absolute abuse of the Parliament for the Government and their supporters to behave so shamefully in stymieing civil rights for disabled people?

Madam Speaker: I believe that I have answered the earlier point of order. Whether manipulation has occurred is not a matter for the Speaker to determine. Bills must take their turn when going into or coming out of Committee, and we are all familiar with the procedures of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago, you responded to a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) brought before you, by saying that you would deprecate the way in which Ministers were using the parliamentary system.
In view of the Jopling changes and the complications surrounding the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and other legislation, do you agree that it seems a little odd that the Government have never tackled the question of Private Members' Bills in the House? Do you not think that a little word from you in the right direction might make a difference? If changes are to be made, perhaps under new Labour—new, improved Labour—we ought to turn our attention to doing something about that problem, which affects honest-to-goodness Bills which aim to help disabled persons, wild animals and so on.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member is well aware that I cannot concern myself with the politics of a Private Member's Bill—or even a public Bill, for that matter. I am concerned about the procedures of the House: I want to help the House in general, and I want to help hon.' Members, who work very hard on their Private Members' Bills. In the end, it is a matter for the business managers, and I will do all I can to be helpful.

Mr. Don Touhig: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice following a report which appeared in this morning's edition of the Financial Times. It stated that British Gas will lose its chartermark for high quality services unless it improves customer relations. The report also said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not intend to come to the House to make a statement about the matter, but will report to the House by providing a written answer.
In view of your earlier comments about protecting the interests of hon. Members and of the House, I wonder whether you could provide some advice as to how we might persuade the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come to the Chamber to answer questions about the matter.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member may use the Order Paper to direct questions to the appropriate Minister. I am not sure whether he is aware that it is entirely up to the Minister concerned whether he answers a question by way of a written answer or comes to the Dispatch Box to make an oral statement. The Minister must determine by which method he will inform the House of any policy changes or statements he wishes to make; it is not for me to decide.

BILLS PRESENTED

SPORTS (DISCRIMINATION)

Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Gary Waller, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Alan Williams, Ms Kate Hoey and Mr. Tom Pendry, presented a Bill to make it unlawful for any administrative or rule-making body for a sport, or any affiliated club, to discriminate against persons who have participated, are participating or are expected to participate in any other lawful sport; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS) AMENDMENT

Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Ms Mildred Gordon, presented a Bill to provide for the High Court to order the holding of a formal investigation into a shipping casualty; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY

That the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 655) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Transport (Motorway Safety)

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the safety of motorways and motorway driving; and for connected purposes.
I seek permission to introduce a Bill which would improve safety on our motorways and on all roads throughout the United Kingdom. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend has contributed much to motorway safety in his time at the Department of Transport, including the very sensible measure of banning coaches from the third lane of motorways. That is something on which he knows I am keen. I hope that my hon. Friend will look sympathetically at the proposals I am making today.
The Bill covers two main provisions, one relating to driver visibility in adverse conditions and the other to the behaviour of drivers on our roads. Issues of road safety are particularly relevant to my constituency, not least because we are close to the M25 and the M40. The last census revealed that my constituency is second only to Beaconsfield in the number of three-car families.
Science and technology have made a great contribution to the increased safety of drivers. We all now drive vehicles which give greater protection to drivers and passengers in the event of an accident. The transport and chemicals group of the Technology Foresight process reported last month, and introduced three achievable objectives—the informed traveller, who will be able to make the best decisions on a journey; the foresight vehicle, which would be more environmentally friendly as well as incorporating collision avoidance systems; and the clear zone, to provide high-quality access to central shops through nil-emission public transportation.
In all these future developments, technology will increase safety and reduce environmental impact from motor vehicles. In the meantime, there is a role for Parliament in tackling some of the simpler aspects of motoring safety, where the technology exists but needs stricter enforcement and monitoring, or where we are dealing with the most complex piece of technology—the human being.
In 1993, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 6,863 accidents on motorways. Some 201 people were killed, and 11,046 injured. More than 15,124 vehicles were involved, and 34 per cent. of accidents occurred when the motorway was wet or flooded.
I am sure that everyone in the House has found themselves driving on a motorway in wet conditions and—like me—knows the problems of overtaking heavy vehicles. The spray emanating from the rear of those vehicles can be frightening, and effectively one is are often overtaking blind for 10 or 20 seconds, or longer. If it is at night on an unlit stretch of motorway, it can be more hazardous for the smaller vehicle. I know of many normally excellent drivers who have been unnerved by the experience.
In 1984, the Department of Transport issued regulation 46E on spray suppression and, in 1989, EC directive 89/377 laid out comprehensive rules on spray suppression from HGVs throughout the Community. Many aspects of

the regulations are still unsatisfactory, and work is continuing on the technology of both road surfaces and suppression devices to improve the situation.
In the meantime, there are vehicles on the road complying with the regulations at the time of their 12–monthly inspection for roadworthiness which, during a journey, sustain damage to their spray flaps or lose them completely. That immediately causes a vehicle in wet weather conditions to produce extra—often life-threatening—spray.
At present, under the Road Traffic Act 1988, a vehicle can be stopped and tested for brakes, silencer, steering, noise, tyres, lights, excessive fumes, smoke or vapours. I wish to add to that all spray suppression devices, including wheel guards, valances, wheel flaps, air/water separators and any longitudinal strips or flaps of spray suppressant material. Any driver in charge of a vehicle which has sustained damage to its spray suppression equipment should not be permitted to take that vehicle on to the highway until it has been remedied, in just the same way as if a brake light had failed or the tyres were bald.
Last week, while travelling to my constituency—a mere 45–minute drive—I counted no fewer than five heavy vehicles with broken flaps or missing a flap at the back. This simple measure would ensure that HGV drivers paid more attention to a simple device which could save lives by reducing spray in wet weather conditions. Drivers would have to make sure that that important piece of equipment was well maintained at all times.
The second part of the Bill relates to the driver, and to a relatively new phenomenon which appears to be an unwelcome import from America. It has been called road rage, or red mist. The issue first came to our attention in the 1980s, when four people were killed and several injured on Los Angeles freeways in a spate of armed violence. We are now seeing an increase in the number of incidents on our own roads, which must be addressed.
A driver in Newcastle had his nose bitten off in a row with another motorist. At traffic lights in Wakefield, a 78–year-old man died when he was punched by a much younger driver during a dispute at traffic lights. A young woman on the M6 at night was forced off the motorway by a male driver, which left her upside down in her car. The Royal Automobile Club, which was most helpful in helping to prepare my Bill, reports that one of its patrolmen was attacked by a motorist whom he stopped to help. I have been on the receiving end of aggressive driving by other motorists—not least, women. In securing support for my Bill, I spoke to several colleagues, and they repeated alarming stories.
Last November, a driver was given a jail sentence for attacking two other motorists in the space of 15 minutes. Mr. Justice Keane, sentencing the offender, said:
You become highly aggressive behind the wheel. People should be allowed to drive around without being attacked. The courts will not tolerate aggression of this sort on the road, and the message must go out to other drivers loud and clear.
My Bill asks the Government to reinforce that message by introducing a campaign similar to the successful one against drink-driving, to improve driver awareness of the problem and of the discourteous behaviour that can turn a normally mild-mannered motorist into a fiend of the road.
Where road rage may be an element in an offence, the courts should have an additional power to require the offender to undergo a psychological assessment and counselling for anger and stress management before


having his or her driving licence returned. Rage counselling could help overcome attitude problems on the road, in the same way as drink-driving rehabilitation courses have helped offenders.
The RAC identified a number of incidents that cause great annoyance to drivers. They will be familiar to every motorist. Number one are drivers who cut into traffic queues at roadworks at the last minute. Others include the middle-lane monopoliser, motorists who drive too close at high speed, drivers who overtake on the inside, and parking-space stealers.
The RAC has also produced tips for avoiding confrontation on the roads. One should try to stay calm and avoid any challenge, leave room between one's one car and the vehicle in front so that one can drive away if necessary, avoid eye contact with an aggressor, keep the doors locked, and, if one cannot get away, draw attention by flashing one's headlights, sounding the horn or, if one has a mobile phone, calling the police.
Edmund King, head of campaigns at the RAC, and Richard Woods, campaign co-ordinator, have been doing sterling work in spreading the message. It is time for the Government to help spread the message of safety through courtesy on the roads, and to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
I hope that my Bill will heighten awareness of safety matters, not at the leading edge of technology but at a more basic level, by improving the maintenance of, spray-suppression devices and highlighting the need for a courtesy campaign, coupled with appropriate penalties to prevent accidents and violent and dangerous behaviour on our roads.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Oliver Heald, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Hartley Booth.

TRANSPORT (MOTORWAY SAFETY)

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan accordingly presented a Bill to improve the safety of motorways and motorway driving; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

Orders of the Day — Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 4

MORTGAGES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

.—(1) Section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leasing powers of mortgagor and mortgagee in possession) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (13), there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (13A) below,&amp;.
(3) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
(13A) Subsection (13) of this section—

(a) shall not enable the application of any provision of this section to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made after 1st March 1948 but before 1st September 1995, and
(b) shall not enable the power to grant a lease of an agricultural holding to which, by virtue of section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply, to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made on or after 1st September 1995.

(13B) In subsection (13A) of this section—
`agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
`agricultural land' has the same meaning as in the Agriculture Act 1947.&amp;
(4) Paragraph 12 of Schedule 14 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (which excludes the application of subsection (13) of section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to a mortgage of agricultural land and is superseded by the amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) above) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a technical amendment, but the effect is simple. Since 1948, agricultural holdings legislation has effectively prevented mortgage lenders from placing restrictions on the letting of agricultural land by landowners who have mortgaged the land. The effect has been that banks discount land values in the farming sector because the land, even though mortgaged to a bank, can be let in a way that would adversely affect its realisable value in the event of default.
The banks have supported these far-reaching reforms which have been brought about by the Bill. They have suggested, however—the main organisations in the industry, with which we have worked closely throughout the passage of the Bill, have agreed—that there would be advantages in treating agricultural land like any other land or property which is mortgaged, and enabling mortgage lenders to control lettings if they so wish.
The industry sees that the banks would be encouraged to adopt a more flexible and confident policy in providing finance to landowners. That in turn would be of benefit to farmers seeking to take on new farm business tenancies. For their part, the banks welcome our action in drafting an amendment to the Law of Property Act 1925. They


understand our reasons for doing so in a way that avoids any possibility of the provision having any retrospective effect on parties who agreed to mortgages before the commencement of the Bill.
Subsection 4 contains the principal amendment, whereby paragraph 12 of schedule 14 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will cease to have effect. That will put mortgaged agricultural land on the same footing as any other mortgaged land. A substantive amendment to the 1925 Act is also needed, to avoid retrospection. As we have made clear throughout our discussions on tenancy law reform, the new legislation is not to be retrospective. The new clause adds a new subsection to section 99 of the 1925 Act to safeguard the interests of existing borrowers and people who are entitled to a new 1986 Act tenancy.

Mr. Martyn Jones: As the Minister said, the new clause relates to mortgages and the formation of new tenancies. It is a complex subject. There has been tinkering in at least three other Bills, dating back to the Law of Property Act 1925. I am by no means an expert on these matters, but the experts with whom I have been in contact believe the new clause to be a good measure, if a last-minute one.
The law as it stood left banks unable to recover losses when the original borrower had formed a new tenancy, often transferring to his wife or son. Such tenancies may well have been a way of holding on to the land when insolvency was imminent. The new clause will put agriculture on the same footing as any other mortgaged land. It is to be hoped that it will encourage banks to lend. I welcome the fact that the Government listened to the industry and have not made the changes retrospective. We support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second Time and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES: ANNUAL REPORT

`—(1) The Secretary of State shall, annually from 1st September 1996, collate information on the actual amount and type of let agricultural land in England and Wales and publish a report containing this information, a copy of which shall be laid before Parliament.

(2) The report made under subsection (1) above shall in particular, though without prejudice to the generality of the requirement of that subsection, list separately land let under this Act and tenancies let under earlier Acts.'.—[Mr. Martyn Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The prime reason for the Bill, as stated by the industry, the Government and the Opposition, is to get more people into farming. We wish to give an incentive and impetus to new, younger farmers. We, the Opposition, believe that the Bill will not deliver the goods. It will do nothing to ease the life of the small tenant farmer. The Bill is clearly a licence for large farmers to become larger.
We need an independent annual report that shows clearly where the Bill is working, where it is failing and where it needs improving. Such a report needs to include records of people who never had a tenancy before, and of people who had a former tenancy. The report should make it clear what type of tenancy was held previously. We

should also know through the report what new land has been tenanted out, the number and size of lettings to corporate tenants, and the length of term of new farm business tenancies.
The annual tenanted farm survey of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, although excellent in its own way, provides little of the information we seek. As two other organisations will be able to draw up tenancies, it is clearly the responsibility of Government to monitor what is happening.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the amount of time and money that his extraordinarily bureaucratic proposal would take? Forms are not popular with farmers—indeed, they are not popular with anybody. His proposal would require a massive amount of paperwork, to little effect.

Mr. Jones: I disagree entirely with the hon. Lady. She will get the reply she requires if she listens to what I have to say.
The Ministry's figures on land use are at present based on a sample of farms, which is rounded up to form percentages. We need totals, absolute figures and percentages of the whole to ensure that the Bill is doing what it should do.
The Bill could be seen as a landowners' Bill, and we are not going to be so naive as to swallow all the nonsense figures on new lettings which will be released over the next few years. The new figures will be produced by a range of interested parties, all with their own slant on the figures. As we have seen this month, with the reporting of the Government's figures on unemployment, their methods of statistical collection and analysis can be highly creative, to put it mildly—or to put it less mildly, totally untrustworthy. However, their data will be better than nothing, a good starting point and easily analysed.
It is not a huge and expensive project that we are asking for. As the Bill stands, only members from three organisations are allowed to draw up the new agricultural tenancies: members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, fellows of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers, and fellows of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. With a tiny bit of planning, it would be possible to get the figures needed at a low cost and with the minimum of time. The whole cost will probably come to a lot less than what has been wasted by the Ministry on ties and wellies with logos for the new Meat Hygiene Service.
The only reason why anyone would want to oppose the new clause would be if they wanted to keep something hidden. What the Government want to keep hidden is the fact that most of the new tenancies under the Bill will go not to first-time tenant farmers but to existing large farmers and to large corporations.

Mr. Paul Tyler: If the qualifications that the hon. Gentleman is rightly identifying are met and the information is as accurate and as comprehensive as he clearly requires, and if it proves that new tenancies will be coming forward between now, and when, perhaps, he is on the other side of the House, will he give an undertaking here and now that the Labour party will not repeal the proposed legislation?

Mr. Jones: We shall be giving assurances later, when we have had time to debate the Bill completely. The assurances that the hon. Gentleman wants have been asked for by industry, and we have been considering them. In due course, the hon. Gentleman may well get those assurances. At the moment, we are debating the need for the figures to assess what any future Government will need to do about tenancies, and whether the Bill has the effect of creating new business tenancies.
It is clear from the announcement this month of the introduction of a new orchard fruit survey that the Minister is not averse to new surveys. There is already an annual report to Parliament on smallholdings in England, and the 44th will be published in November. We are not calling for a radical, costly new imposition, but an easily collectable, and therefore cheap, but very important bit of research.
The Government want to say that they are supporting new entrants into farming, when all they are doing, we believe, is supporting landowners and big businesses. If the Minister denies that, he should support the new clause, and allow the effect of the Bill to be measured.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On Second Reading, or at some time when the Bill was being considered in Committee, the Minister said that he would be looking closely at the way in which the proposed legislation would work. I support the new clause tabled by the Opposition, as I believe that it would not entail a' great deal of work.
Some time ago, a west country surveyor told me that he had some 25 branches throughout the west country. He was able to tell me within a matter of seconds how many full tenancies he or his firm had been involved with in the previous 18 months, so I do not necessarily see that it will mean a lot of bureaucracy and difficulty. Indeed, I would go further, and say that the facts and figures in agriculture are available here, there and everywhere, but they need to be collated in one short simple form, and it is necessary that we do so.
I do not profess to have the ultimate answer. I certainly do not have a crystal ball, any more than any other hon. Member. The Government may be right, in due course, to say that the Bill will release a great deal of new agricultural land for letting. I sincerely hope that they are right. I have definite misgivings and have made them known at several stages during the passage of the Bill. I am not necessarily playing the Opposition game. I am looking at the problem.
We may well encounter a situation in which experienced, well-established farmers again perpetuate a semi-Gladstone v. Bower situation. Further short tenancies will be taken on, and longer ones will not be needed. They will be the icing on the cake. What we need now—what I believe to be the purport of the Bill, and what I sincerely hope will be its effect—is new units for new entrants into agriculture. That is the task for the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a long intervention. Interventions are supposed to be short and to the point.

Mr. Llwyd: I shall keep my contribution short. I thought that I was being concise, but there we are. Lawyers are not always concise.
This is a proper, good new clause, worthy of support. It is a simple, straightforward measure to monitor the working of the Bill. It will enable us to see, in 18 months or two years from now, whether the Government's assurances were correct or whether the misgivings of Opposition Members were correct. I speak in the interests of agriculture, not in a narrow political sense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He was making a speech, not intervening. My attention was distracted by a conversation at my side. The hon. Gentleman was in order.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I support new clause 1, which asks for an annual report of the type of lettings made under the Bill. That will not entail an enormous amount of work or bureaucracy. The questionnaire involved could be brief, simply asking for the length of a tenancy, its terms, what parcels of land are involved, and so on.
During the Bill's passage, we have heard several times about the amount of land being let having dropped from 90 per cent. at the turn of the century to just 35 per cent. of our land today. I am not sure that that is a bad thing. In a sense, it reflects the rise of owner-occupation. One would be delighted with those figures if they were for housing. Similarly, I am happy to see them for land.
However, I am concerned that the number of holdings, the number of farms and the number of people working on the land are in decline year by year. That has terrific social consequences in the areas that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and I represent. It has consequences for the Welsh language and generally for rural areas. There is a real problem in the amalgamation of smallholdings. When farms come on to the market, they are gobbled up by their neighbours, and jobs disappear from the countryside. I am concerned that the Bill allows for that possibility.
The new clause asks for the amount and type of let agricultural land to be recorded. One of our concerns is the period of let—whether it is a three-year, five-year, 10–year, 15–year or lifetime let. In Committee, we argued for lifetime lets. The statistical exercise requested could tell us the average period of let. The Bill introduces short-termism into agriculture, and agriculture, by its nature, requires long-term investment.
Such a survey would also show us the extent of fragmentation of holdings, about which we are also concerned. It is more beneficial for a landlord to let a 100–acre holding in two or three parcels and to let the farmhouse, and even the farm buildings, separately. Once destroyed, that holding will never return. In rural areas such as the one I represent, retirement, second and holiday homes are popular, and, by definition, many farmhouses are in extremely attractive situations. If a lot of farms are split up as a result of the Bill, we need to know the environmental and social consequences.
The Minister keeps telling us that the Bill will make more land available for new entrants into agriculture. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), however, I fear that not new entrants but existing farmers will take up the farm business contracts, and 15 or 20 acres of neighbouring farms.
The annual survey for which the new clause asks is a perfectly reasonable statistical exercise, reflecting the extent of the Bill's success and the possible deleterious effects about which we are more concerned.

Mr. Llwyd: Could not the few questions involved be included in the much-maligned IACS—integrated administration and control system—form? That involves tenancies.

Mr. Williams: Absolutely. During the Easter recess, I spent some time with the Farmers Union of Wales discussing the IACS forms, which farmers find very troublesome. The details required by the new clause amount to only a small fraction of the amount of information demanded by the IACS forms, and could easily be included in them.
I hope that the Government will consider introducing the modest exercise for which the new clause asks.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: As a matter of principle, the Government should take responsibility for their actions. Nearly two years ago, the Minister came in at a very late stage of the passage of the Bill to abolish the milk marketing boards. Some of the claims by Opposition Members then have the ring of truth now.
I hope that the new clause will be accepted. The Government claim that they want to put new land on the market and to create new entrants; they must now show that they mean it. I have always been sceptical about their claims: I believe that, although new land will come on to the market, most of it will go to established farmers and landowners, and there will be few new entrants. I also fear that there will be very short tenancies, rather than the 10, 15 or 25–year tenancies that would encourage capital investment. That will not be good for the industry. I hope that the survey required by the new clause will also examine rents, which I fear will become very high.
In Committee, we pressed the Minister about the sale of British Coal land. I acknowledge that the Minister was helpful throughout our discussions, but I remind him that, some weeks after the end of the Committee stage, problems remain.
I know that allotments are close to the Minister's heart; I hope that the first annual report will state clearly what has happened to British Coal allotment holders. I am not confident that the promises by Ministers in other Departments have the ring of authenticity. Nothing has happened yet, but I hope to read in the first report that allotment holders maintain their plots.
I also hope that the survey will reveal what has happened to larger pieces of land. Issues involving Crichel Down remain to be resolved—for instance, the question of tenants taking contaminated British Coal land and being indemnified. Large parts of the country are being blighted where the rural aspect coincides with the industrial; the sooner we get rid of that blight the better.m
I hope that the new clause will be accepted, and that the first annual report shows that the decent thing has been done for British Coal tenancy holders.

Mr. Jack: This has been an interesting exchange on the question of monitoring the effects of the Bill. My hon.
Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was right, in her sage intervention, to remind us of the question of cost and complexity when people seek information. I shall say more on that later.
The opening exchanges have shown us that Labour Members still have an underlying suspicion about the Bill, and do not fully endorse and rejoice in the benefits that it will bring to the world of agriculture. No doubt we shall hear more about that in due course.
I wrote down what the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) said, because I thought it quite interesting—that the Bill was a licence for big farms to get bigger. Clearly he has not read the latest parliamentary briefing sent out by the Tenant Farmers Association, which is an avowed enthusiast of the Bill. The conclusion to that eminently readable document states:
Many owners no longer wish to farm. Family farms offer the opportunities to expand and others wish to enter the industry.
That is a succinct way of pointing out that the Bill has the potential to benefit all sorts of agricultural activity, whether large or small. It may well provide an opportunity for the younger farmer—perhaps the son of an existing farmer—to develop his own business on the existing farm by being able to take advantage of the additional amounts of new tenanted land that the Bill will bring on to the market. That deals with the point made by Labour Members on that matter.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West also said that the Bill was seen as a landowners' Bill. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman was during the Committee stage. I seem to recall that organisations like the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Young Farmers were cited on many occasions as supporters of the Bill. Therefore, I rebut the hon. Gentleman's claim that it is a landowners' Bill; it is not.
The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) were, each in his own way, supportive of a measure to monitor the Bill's effects. The hon. Member for Carmarthen suggested that the IACS form could be used to collect data. Not everyone has to participate in schemes covered by IACS, so there could be a technical hole in that argument.
I want to come to the heart of the matter, and comment on the question of monitoring the uptake of farm business tenancies in the coming years. It is in the Government's interests, as it is in the hon. Gentleman's, to see what happens when, I hope, the House passes the Bill into law. As the hon. Gentleman said, in reply to a parliamentary question from him, I said that MAFF regularly reviews its requirements for statistics, and is considering how best to monitor the new farm business tenancies. Indeed, my officials were starting a review of the information currently available when the hon. Gentleman tabled his question.
As part of the review process, we shall be consulting professional organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, which conduct their own invaluable informative surveys, to ensure that there is no duplication of effort leading to unreasonable burdens on farmers and professional advisers. I hope that that point satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster.
We will take careful stock of what needs to be done to put in place sensible arrangements for monitoring, and we will publish the results of that exercise.

Mr. Tyler: Could I put to the Minister the obverse of the challenge that I put to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones)? Will he give an undertaking to the House that, if the careful monitoring proves to the Minister and the Ministry that the success of the Bill, should it become an Act, has been less than he hoped for, he and his right hon. and hon. colleagues will review the legislation again?
Having raised the expectation of real improvements in access to new land for new entrants and those whom we all want to ensure have a first step on the ladder of agriculture, it would be damaging if those expectations were thwarted in practice.

Mr. Jack: It is nice to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) now participating in our proceedings. He gave a new definition to the expression "awayday" during the Committee proceedings.
As always, I shall do my best to respond positively to his request for review. It is almost a throwaway line, if one is not entirely certain of something, to say that it will be reviewed. I am certain that the Bill will give rise to opportunities for more tenanted land to become available. I am supported in that line of argument by the work of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which, before measures were introduced to deal with the treatment of tenanted land for inheritance tax, forecast that more than I million new acres would become available in the first five years.
I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West sufficient assurances that we will establish proper monitoring of the effects of the Bill. Naturally, we want to see what will happen. The hon. Member for North Cornwall may perhaps be unaware of some of the inner workings of government, but we always keep under review the way in which a particular piece of legislation is operating. I will not give him the satisfaction this evening of giving a time scale within which some sort of review will be undertaken. We want to get the legislation in place and monitor carefully what is happening. Clearly, as always, if there were problems, matters could be looked at again.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but does he agree that the success of the Bill will be seen not in the maintenance of statistics, whether or not they show a huge increase in the amount of land to be let, but in the freedom of contract that it will provide between landlord and tenant?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, who has much knowledge in the matter, makes his own sage comment.

Mr. Tyler: I want to be absolutely clear, and I am sure that the House will also want to be clear, that the Minister endorses the forecast by the RICS that 1 million acres will become available within the time scale referred to.

Mr. Jack: My task is to draw on the independent analyses that have been done. They give us a clear picture of how those who are informed about these matters estimate that the Bill will impact on the tenanted sector. I certainly do not wish to disagree with that.
We shall have to wait and see what the uptake is. The RICS has said that 1 million acres of land could be made available. It is my earnest hope that all those organisations which have been such strong supporters of the measure will find that their members—for example, young farmers, tenant farmers and others—will take up the opportunities provided. The monitoring exercise that I have described builds on the expertise of those organisations. We seek not to duplicate but to work with the industry on the matter. We want to make certain that all the relevant strands of monitoring are drawn together.
We agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West about the desirability of monitoring the effects of the Bill. In the light of what I have said and the consultations that we wish to have with the RICS and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers so that all that expertise can be drawn together, I hope that the hon. Gentleman might see fit to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Llwyd: It is accepted that the Bill has been some five or six years in gestation. I am astonished that the Ministry has not put something together in the way of monitoring at this stage. We have had so many years of discussion about it. Why does not the Minister have a form of monitoring ready and waiting which could be written into the Bill? That would have been preferable to leaving it on a hope basis for later.

5 pm

Mr. Jack: As I have told the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West, because we have already started an exercise to review the way in which we will monitor the legislation. It would almost be discourteous to the House automatically to anticipate that we would simply get this measure through and then start, well in advance, to prepare a monitoring exercise. We want to make certain that we know exactly what we are monitoring. Until the Bill passes all its stages in this House, that is something that we cannot do. In timetabling terms, we have found a sensible balance on the matter.

Mr. Derek Enright: The Minister asked whether we were suspicious of the Government, and I confess that I am now extremely suspicious, because he has not responded to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) for information on allotment holders, which is extremely important to some of us.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comment. I have a personal interest, having dug an allotment over Easter. Allotment land is not subject to the agricultural holdings legislation, but British Coal and the Department of Trade and Industry are reviewing how it will be treated, in the way the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) described. Those concerned are well aware of the anxieties expressed that the land should be retained for its existing use. The hon Gentleman asked me a number of other questions, and I will ensure that he gets a definitive answer in some way, shape or form.
With those remarks, and our commitment to put in place a proper monitoring system, I hope that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West will see fit to withdraw the new clause.

Dr. Gavin Strang: In his opening remarks, the Minister of State said that the Opposition


were not rejoicing in their support for the Bill. I can certainly confirm that. Indeed, we have been consistent in our opposition to it.
We oppose the Bill because we believe in security of tenure for tenant farmers, and we regard the relationship between a landlord and a tenant as fundamentally unequal. That means that legislation is required, and the Government have implicitly accepted that need in the Bill.
I think that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) encapsulated the argument when he mentioned freedom of contract between the landlord and the tenant. We believe that the tenant needs something more, which is why we regard this legal framework for governing relationships between farmers and landowners as flawed and unacceptable on the fundamental points of social justice and security of tenure.
The argument for the Bill has been stated, and there is no doubt about the motives of some of the participants—there is a genuine wish to encourage new entrants into the industry. Labour Members certainly share that wish, which is why we published the consultative document that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) produced. The document proposed some hard, practical and concrete proposals for encouraging new entrants into the industry, and I will return to the industry's reaction to it, but not during this debate.

Mr. Jack: The document published last September contained an intriguing little phrase. The author said:
If the legislation … is not working sufficiently well"—
I presume he meant this legislation—
the Labour Party would consider re-introducing a minimum term of farm tenancies".
Can the hon. Gentleman assist me by giving me a precise definition of what "not working well" means?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering the new clause, and it would be helpful if the hon. Member would get back to that.

Dr. Strang: Since new clause 1 concerns working well and monitoring the legislation when it comes into force, I want to deal with those points explicitly. Working well includes, among other things, the question of new entrants. That is the whole purpose of the Bill—well, it is not the whole purpose, as I would not grant the Government that, but it is one of its purposes.
We want to monitor the effect of the legislation, and you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the clause concerns monitoring. I hope to catch your eye on Third Reading, when I will be more explicit, but we want to give the legislation an opportunity to work, and do not intend, therefore, to introduce retrospective legislation.
Monitoring and whether it is a reasonable proposition in the context of this new legislation are the real issues. I interpret the Minister of State's remarks as positive on that account, and think that he is acknowledging that there is a good case for reviewing the effect of the legislation over a period of years. This is a long-term business. Frankly, it is because we regard farming as a long-term business that we are against the Bill. It will take some years to find out how the legislation is working out.
Various attempts have been made to anticipate the effects of the legislation. Many hon. Members, including, I think, the Minister of State, referred to the document produced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, "Farm Business Tenancies, New Farms and Land 1995–97", which was a valuable report. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote from some of the key conclusions.
It is projected that
nearly 900,000 acres will be let through chartered surveyors for five years or more under a farm business tenancy. This would comprise 1,166 equipped farms and 3,315 blocks of bare land…From a core of 9.4 million acres existing lifetime and qualifying succession tenancies will continue under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 for many years. Some owners' agents indicated that they will recommend reletting on the basis of long-term traditional type tenancies when this land falls vacant. Of the 8.56 million acres of land in England and Wales where chartered surveyors may not be retained continuously and which is likely to be predominantly owner-occupied it is probable that some will come into the let sector for the first time under farm business tenancies.
The survey could not identify the extent to which that might happen, and many respondents did not reply to the questionnaire. That shows that there is a case for looking at the effect of the legislation.
It was suggested, I think by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), that that might be done through the IACS form. No one is ruling that out, but the Minister of State correctly pointed out that implicit in that suggestion is an acceptance that one is going to survey every farm in the country, which is not necessary under our new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) also commented on that.
We are interested in genuinely objective information about how the legislation is working. I will give some of the key factors that we should be considering in a minute. It may well be possible to do so through good samples. Obviously, they will have to be spread throughout England and Wales. The position in Scotland is different, and the legislation does not apply there, as tradition and attitude to the issue are in some respects rather different from those of the body politic in agriculture in England. The position in Wales is also slightly different.
Surely we are interested in the extent to which more land is owned by institutions. The institutional ownership of land was a major issue, as many hon. Members will remember, and was one reason why the last Labour Government set up what was probably the best and most authoritative report on the issue—the Northfield report, which was published after Labour lost power. The then Minister of Agriculture, who later became a Secretary of State for the Environment, handled the matter, and the incoming Conservative Government did nothing.
In those days, the ownership of land by non-British or non-European Union citizens was also an issue, and to an extent it still concerns people in some parts of Scotland when they see whole islands being bought and sold every year. Although there is less overall concern about those issues now, I should have thought that we would want to keep information on what is happening in that respect.
How many new farm business tenancies, which commence on 1 September 1995, will be created each year, and how many will be created on previously unoccupied land? Will the farmhouse stay with the farm? I think that the Conservative party supports our position, which is that we want to encourage family farms and family farming.
We criticise the Bill because we believe that, among other things, it will lead to the fragmentation and break-up of holdings. We may be wrong—who is to say? But we should monitor the extent to which land will simply be let to neighbouring farmers.
Will bona fide new entrants into the industry have proper tenancies, albeit short-term tenancies? I recognise that those may be enough to get them started, build up a fairly intensive business and then move on to something else. It goes without saying that we are interested in the duration of those tenancies. We are not going down the right road if we are to end up with the bulk of our tenanted land farmed on the basis of five-year tenancies.
We welcome the Government's constructive response on this matter and will therefore not push the new clause.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

MILK QUOTAS: COMPENSATION

`Where a milk quota was registered in relation to land held on a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, and that land is let immediately upon the expiry of that tenancy as a farm business tenancy, and where no claim was made for compensation in respect of that quota under the Agriculture Act 1986, that latter Act shall still apply to that milk quota which shall not be the subject of any' other claim for compensation.'.—[Mr. Martyn Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a redraft of new clauses originally discussed in the other place. It is a minor new clause that protects farmers in tenancies covered by the 1986 Act when the new farm business tenancy comes into effect. Clause 16(3) does away with the 1986 Act's formula for assessing milk quota compensation. Any compensation under a farm business tenancy will be under the general wording of clause 17 on landlords' consent.
Where a tenancy under the 1986 Act has been surrendered or terminated and the outgoing tenant enters into a farm business tenancy in respect of an area including the same land, either as an individual or in a partnership, he may not press for his milk quota compensation at the date of the changeover. He will thus forgo his entitlement to milk quota compensation under the 1986 Act, and his previous period of occupation will not be carried forward into the assessment of improvements made at the end of his farm business tenancy. If a tenant does not insist on payment of compensation for quota at the end of a 1986 lease, he will lose all rights to payment at a later date. The new clause ensures that that will not happen.
The Government should not allow the Bill to be used as a cloak for false undertakings so that landlords can avoid responsibility to pay compensation under the 1986 Act. The new clause is narrow and will not result in a major prolongation of the life of the 1986 Act.

Mr. Tyler: I wish to endorse the purpose of the new clause. I hope that the Minister has taken seriously the

points that have been made, not just by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) but by many individuals in the industry.
Clearly, the question of milk quotas currently features in the calculations that anybody in the dairy sector must make because of the extraordinary value that can now be attached to them. I know that the Minister and his right hon. Friends share my concern at how milk quotas seem increasingly to be getting out of hand. In those circumstances, I hope a way will be found to ensure that no opportunity is lost to compensate those who might otherwise be put at considerable financial disadvantage. I am not in a position to say whether the new clause is the only or best way to do that. There may be another more technically secure way, but I hope that the Minister can reassure the House and the industry that a belt-and-braces system will be put in place to ensure that compensation will not be lost in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) was right to alert the House in his opening remarks to the fact that this matter was dealt with extensively in another place. I thought that the matter had been settled then, but I understand the concerns which the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have expressed. I shall deal with those matters at length because they are important and must be put on the record.
Milk quota is an important, complicated and technical matter but I see no good reason to add to existing complications by accepting the new clause. We have been over all these issues before in considerable detail and have genuinely satisfied the industry's concerns on this matter to such an extent that it does not support the new clause.
Tenants who take up a farm business tenancy immediately after a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act has ended and who are eligible to do so can agree to use the current milk quota compensation provision in the Agriculture Act 1986 to determine compensation payable in respect of the original tenancy. They will also be free to agree on the timing of such compensation. For example, it might suit parties to make the actual payment at the end of the farm business tenancy. Such an agreement might make sense where both parties want to secure the benefits of a farm business tenancy but where the landlord cannot immediately raise the money to settle compensation under the Agriculture Act before the new tenancy starts.
It is vital to remember that not everyone with a dairy farm tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 would be eligible for compensation under the Agriculture Act 1986 in respect of milk quota. The statutory compensation scheme ensures that the respective shares of landlord and tenant in the value of quota allocated to a producer in occupation of a holding on 2 April 1984 are taken into account when the tenancy ends or when the last of any statutory succession tenancies have ended. But if the original tenant took up occupancy after 2 April 1984, there is no right to compensation.
With respect, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West may not have appreciated the difficulties of providing legal certainty if two systems of statutory compensation for milk quota were in operation in relation to the same holding. The first problem would be to ensure that any Agriculture Act rights are respected where a farm


business tenancy has begun and the tenant has an entirely different statutory entitlement to compensation for additional quota brought on to his holding under clause 16. It would be even more difficult in cases where tenancies occupy some other land for milk production as well as their farm business holdings. Because of the operation of European Community rules, such additional quota would have to be aggregated with all the existing quota registered in the producer's name and might, over the life of the tenancy, become impossible to identify.
I reassure Opposition Members that clause 16(3) does not prevent parties from agreeing the most appropriate arrangements on milk quota compensation in respect of a 1986 Act tenancy that comes to an end in such a way as to meet their particular needs. It may also be an important factor in detailed negotiations for a subsequent business tenancy that might be on offer to existing tenants. I assure the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West that we have gone into the issue in substantial detail, that no danger exists of tenants being deprived of their compensation rights by the Bill, and that the industry is satisfied that that is so. With those assurances and that explanation—I apologise for the complexity, but it is a detailed matter—I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that he should, on reflection, withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances, following which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

NOTICE REQUIRING STATUTORY RENT REVIEW.

Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 18, after 'rent', insert—
`( ) any date as from which there took effect a previous determination as to the amount of the rent made, otherwise than as arbitrator, by a person appointed under an agreement between the landlord and the tenant.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 2.

Mr. Jack: This is a technical amendment. Under the Bill, parties may agree to the appointment of a person to determine rent "otherwise than as arbitrator". The amendment is necessary so that the rent review cycle takes account of any such rent determination in the same way as if an arbitrator had determined the rent at a rent review. The amendment to clause 11 is consequential on that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Cause 11

REVIEW DATE WHERE NEW TENANCY OF SEVERED PART OF REVERSION

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 7, line 42, after `direction', insert ', determination'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 19

REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION OF REFUSAL OR FAILURE TO GIVE CONSENT OR OF CONDITION ATTACHED TO CONSENT.

Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 22, leave out
`the proposed provision of a'
and insert 'any'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 11.

Mr. Jack: This is one of the most important of the amendments that we are considering this afternoon. May I put on record my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West for withdrawing his amendment? I know that the matter caused hon. Members on both sides of the Committee some considerable concern. The Government thought carefully about that: hence the amendment. It deals with what is known as tenant-right matters. Those concerns arose because the system of compensation under the Bill is different from that under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
Under that Act, improvements are divided into long-term improvements, for which the consent of the landlord is required, and short-term improvements, for which the tenant can claim compensation without having obtained the landlord's consent. Schedule 8 to that Act lists the short-term improvements and tenant-right matters.
Under the Bill, no such distinction is made. All improvements require landlords' consent to be eligible for compensation. In cases where consent is refused, the tenant has the right to go to arbitration, except in the case of planning permission. However, fears were expressed that some tenants, being used to the 1986 Act, might not realise that they needed a landlord's consent for certain routine operations, for which they later intended to claim compensation. The amendment deals with that point.
The principal concern related to growing crops left on the holding at the end of a tenancy, but there was also a strong feeling that a tenant's right to compensation should be safeguarded where he had performed other common activities that add to the value of the holding, such as liming or applying fertiliser. The amendment that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West tabled in Committee attempted to deal with those points by including a list of specified matters for which tenants would be entitled to compensation without the need to obtain the landlord's consent.
I explained in Committee why the Government were not attracted by that listing approach. I agreed, however, that I would reflect on what could be done about the position, and said that we would discuss it further with the industry. We have come up with a different approach, which can cover all those matters that I have mentioned—such as growing crops and applying fertiliser—as well as others that add value to the holding. I am pleased to say that that approach has the support of the industry group. Although it requires a number of amendments, the overall effect is straightforward.
The amendments to clause 19 will ensure that a tenant can carry out "routine improvements" without losing the right to seek arbitration if the landlord, for any reason, withholds consent, or attaches conditions that the tenant does not wish to accept.
Routine improvement is broadly defined as a physical improvement made in the normal course of farming the holding. It does not cover improvements to fixed equipment, or improvements prohibited by the tenancy agreement. It is intended to cover individual acts of husbandry of the type that we considered in Committee, including those that add only a small amount of value compared with the overall value of the holding. Compensation for routine improvements will be calculated on the same basis as end-of-tenancy compensation for other improvements—the increase, attributable to the improvement, in the value of the holding as land comprised in a tenancy.
Some concern has been expressed that that could result in routine improvements, which may have a small value relative to the overall value of the holding, being overlooked. However, the same principles of valuation will apply for small and routine improvements as for large ones. If they add value, they should be compensated accordingly.
Amendment No. 11 in relation to clause 22 will help the parties to keep the cost of arbitration to the minimum. If they are unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator, they may apply to the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who will appoint one for them. The amendment says that, where two applications are being made at the same time for the appointment of an arbitrator, first to consider consent due to routine improvements, and, secondly, to consider the amount of compensation due, the RICS president must appoint the same arbitrator for both matters. If both applications are made by the same person, just one application fee is payable.
I hope, with those few words, that I have illustrated that we have fully responded to the concerns expressed on both sides of the Committee. We have consulted the industry. It supports the amendment, which deals comprehensively with matters concerning the tenant right.

Mr. Tyler: I pay tribute to the Minister for listening to a number of hon. Members, including myself. Indeed, I spoke on the tenant right issue on Second Reading. That was an important subject, which we returned to on a number of occasions in Committee. He has come up with an admirable solution to the problem.
Few of us were happy with the idea of a schedule of all the different tenant right compensation opportunities that might occur because those might change. The last thing that we want is to put on statute something that might become anachronistic in a comparatively short time or, by so doing, to exclude some other normal husbandry practice that might develop in the years to come.
The concept of routine improvement and the definition in amendment No. 10 seems admirable. If the industry and valuers think that they can work with it, the House will probably find that it will be a practical application of the principles with which we were all concerned.
I note the Minister's remarks about the need to restrain arbitration costs. That is important. We may find that, if the legislation is undermined, it will be only because the problems of compensation and arbitration become intractable. Therefore, people would seek to avoid those problems by various means and we may have to come back to the matter.
The legislation's main principles will prove to be well founded, but I am concerned about the problems of cost. Clearly, where a comparatively small sum is involved in the compensation that may be payable, to go to expensive arbitration would be absurd. I hope that amendment No. 11 will meet that point.
I hope that the House will support the proposals. I believe them to be extremely important for the success of the whole Bill. I give them my support.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I rise briefly to give a warm welcome to the amendments, especially amendment No. 10.
The Tenants Reform Industry Group has throughout wanted the Bill to specify the way in which "routine improvements", as they are called in the amendment, should be dealt with. Although I largely favour the Bill because it is a deregulatory measure and it allows a large amount of latitude for agreement between the lessor and the lessee, in that specific respect it is right that the way in which one deals with routine improvements—the so-called tenant's right—should be specified on the face of the Bill.
If for no other reason, it should be specified because any legislation passed through this place should deal with the rogue landlord and the rogue tenant, and it would be possible, with the Bill in its present state, for a landlord to be especially awkward with a tenant in the last year of the tenancy and make life very difficult for that tenant as regards the way in which he should be compensated at the end of the tenancy.
It appears wholly wrong, when the agreement is supposed to exist to ensure that the holding is farmed as well as possible, if something that we do in the Bill impairs that. We want the farming to be conducted in the best possible manner right up to the end of the tenancy. I therefore welcome the amendment whole-heartedly.
That subject was originally mentioned by the noble Lord Gallacher in Committee in the other place. It was also mentioned in Committee in this House. I supported the amendments moved by the Opposition. There has been cross-party support.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State who, by giving the right to tenant right, have now got the Bill as near to perfection as possible, such even that the hon. Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) would find it difficult to vote against any aspect of it.
We now have in the Bill, as I understand it, and especially by means of amendment No. 10, the right to tenant right. I suppose that we must now await the code by which the professionals in the industry will assess the way in which tenant right valuations are carried out. I very much hope that the code will be available before Royal Assent is given to the Bill. Then my cup of joy will be overflowing.

Mr. Martyn Jones: We obviously welcome amendments Nos. 3 to 11, because, in effect, they are equivalent to our new clause 3, which was not moved. We know that they are welcome to the industry. Opposition Members have been asking for tenant right since the first stages of the Bill in the Lords and we have done so again on Report in this House, with our new clause 3.
In the other place, Lord Howe, speaking about tenant rights, said that he thought that that was an issue that should be covered by the RICS guidelines, not the Bill; so Lord Howe was asking farmers to sign up to guidelines that had not even been written.
We understand that industry has been pushing the Government hard for those changes, while we have always been committed to tenant right. We are glad that, for once, the hard line dogma of deregulation at all costs, which appeared to be the major motivation of the Bill, has been ignored in favour of industry-driven good management.
We are sorry that it has taken the Government so much longer than us to come round to that way of thinking. We also hope that their loose wording of "routine improvements" will not lead to hardship to tenant farmers as landowners fight over the issues of the wording.
In addition, we can foresee that vague wording being used by less honest landlords as a way to bring pressure to bear on tenants seeking another tenancy from them, the landlord forcing the tenant, quite legally, to reduce his' demands for compensation. We believe that the use of the phrase "tenant right" as used in our new clause would have been a defence against that. We hope, however, that the amendment will provide the protection demanded and required by the industry.
We should also like an assurance from the Minister that "routine improvements" includes crops in fields at the termination of the tenancy and emergency repairs without permission of the landlord.
In cases not covered by tenant right, we have worries about the delays in compensation. I know that that is not directly covered by the amendments, but there could be a two-month delay following written application to the landlord. Time could be lost while the arbitrator was appointed and a hearing date awaited before the tenant could do any major project not covered by the words "routine improvements".
I shall be grateful for any comments that the Minister wishes to make on those matters of concern.

Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for their warm support for the amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and for Stroud spoke with knowledge in Committee and they reflected a genuine anxiety about those matters, as did other hon. Members.
Although the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West and others pressed for what has become the amendment before the House this afternoon, we had given careful thought to some of the issues that tenant right tackled. I would say, almost as a precautionary note to anyone reading our proceedings, that all the issues that can be covered by the amendment could also have been covered by prior

agreement between landlord and tenant. As a result of that discussion, the anxiety was expressed that people who might be used to older practices, or who did not necessarily take those matters into account as a result of difficulties in the landlord-tenant relationship or shoddy drafting of an agreement, might not cover those matters in their preliminary exchanges. That is very much the fail-safe long-stop mechanism that exists for that type of routine improvements.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West perhaps went a little further than the definitions that I had placed on record. I would say to him that the routine improvements are a question of the differentials in valuations. He also asked me about repairs. Repairs would normally be covered by a separate part of the agreement between landlord and tenant, and I would expect that, as part of their discussions, issues of emergency matters would be discussed as a preliminary to their discussions about the way in which they wish to run the holdings, because the issue of dilapidations is also covered separately.
Those questions were largely about agricultural issues and I believe that they were motivated very much by an anxiety about what happened to the crop that might be left in the ground at the end of the tenancy. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West about that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud rightly mentioned the RICS guidelines. I apologise to him for the fact that I had not been able to convey to him a message that the RICS would be delighted if he were to call upon it and discuss the progress that it is making with those guidelines. I gather that work is well advanced, and that it hopes that the documentation will be available, certainly in the early summer.
The RICS is wise to be cautious and careful in what it is doing, because that document will be a pivotal one, ensuring that good advice is available to people drawing up farm business tenancies. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also that there would be further sources of advice, but if he cares to take up that offer I shall be happy to act as an intermediary.
Following the warm words of hon. Members, I thank them for their co-operation on that matter.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he says. However, the crucial matter—because my hon. Friend is so right that that is a pivotal part, not of the Bill but of the practice—is whether all that information is provided before the Bill is enacted. The critical point is not whether it is early or late summer but whether it is before the date of enactment.

Mr. Jack: I take slight issue with my hon. Friend. I could not commit the RICS to a specific date. It is obviously not in my gift; it is its document, not mine. I hope that I am right in interpreting what my hon. Friend says as meaning that he wants that advice to be available in good time for people who embark on drawing up the first of what we hope will he many successful farm business tenancies. I am sure that the RICS will read those proceedings and take note of my hon. Friend's sage words.
I hope that the House will support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 10, line 23, leave out from 'improvement' to 'is' in line 24 and insert
`the tenant under a farm business tenancy'.

No. 5, in page 10, line 32, at end insert
but this subsection has effect subject to subsections (IA) and (2) below.
(1A) No notice under subsection (1) above may be given in relation to any tenant's improvement which the tenant has already provided or begun to provide, unless that improvement is a routine improvement.'.

No. 6, in page 10, line 45, after `RICS', insert
`subject to subsection (7A) below'.

No. 7, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'proposed'.

No. 8, in page 11, line 5, at beginning insert
`Subject to subsection (7A) below'.

No. 9, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'proposed'.

No. 10, in page 11, line 14, at end insert—
'(7A) Where, at any time after giving a notice under subsection (I) above in relation to any tenant's improvement which is not a routine improvement, the tenant begins to provide the improvement—

(a) no application may be made under subsection (3) above after that time,
(b) where such an application has been made but no arbitrator has been appointed before that time, the application shall be ineffective, and
(c) no award may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above after that time except as to the costs of the reference and award in a case where the arbitrator was appointed before, that time.

(7B) For the purposes of this section—
fixed equipment &amp; includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works constructed on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or its produce, or amenity;
routine improvement &amp;, in relation to a farm business tenancy, means any tenant's improvement which—

(a) is a physical improvement made in the normal course of farming the holding or any part of the holding, and
(b) does not consist of fixed equipment or an improvement to fixed equipment,

but does not include any improvement whose provision is prohibited by the terms of the tenancy.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 22

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) Where—

(a) an application under subsection (3) above relates wholly or partly to compensation in respect of a routine improvement (within the meaning of section 19 of this Act) which the tenant has provided or has begun to provide, and 
(b) that application is made at the same time as an application under section 19(3) of this Act relating to the provision of that improvement,

the President of the RICS shall appoint the same arbitrator on both applications and, if both applications are made by the same person, only one fee shall be payable by virtue of section 30(1) of this Act in respect of them.'.—[Mr. Jack.]

Clause 40

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 20, line 35, at end insert

`, except that paragraph 9 of the Schedule does not extend to Northern Ireland.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 13.

Mr. Jack: The amendments are minor and technical.
The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 does not apply to Northern Ireland, but it may, in whole or in part, be extended to apply there by Order in Council. Section 27 was so extended to Northern Ireland in 1979, with necessary variations. Those provisions should be allowed to continue in force there.
The amendments to section 27 of the 1951 Act contained in paragraph 9 of the schedule to the Bill are not relevant to Northern Ireland as farm business tenancies will not exist there. As clause 40 is drafted they would, however, be applied. The amendment to clause 40 is necessary to rectify that and to ensure that the provisions of the 1979 Order in Council are not affected.
The amendment to paragraph 9 of the schedule is necessary because the reference in section 27 of the 1951 Act to the War Damaged Sites Act 1949 was repealed in 1989.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 22, leave out lines 30 and 31.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Bill reported, with amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified].

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At the last election, the Conservative party gave a clear manifesto commitment to introduce proposals to liberalise agricultural tenancy laws. If passed by the House today, the Bill will deliver that commitment.
We can truly say that the Bill has not been particularly divisive in party terms. We have had the broad support of the Liberal Democrats; we shall perhaps return to the attitude of the Labour party later. At least we have heard support from the Labour party today for amendments and improvements that have been proposed, some of which were suggested by the Opposition Front-Bench team and Opposition Members.
Above all, the Bill responds to an unparalleled breadth of consensus within the industry. No one who has held my office, even for as short a time as I have, would expect to find unanimity in agriculture. If two or three farmers gather together, there are likely to be at least three or four opinions after a little bit of debate.
The work done over a number of years to bring together a coalition of the principal interests has been remarkable. I do not think that even five years ago people would have predicted such agreement on such a far-reaching and forward-looking package of reform. It took much discussion and much hard work and patience for that consensus to be reached. For that, I pay tribute to my two


predecessors in my ministerial office, who clearly set out their views on the direction of reform and who acted as midwives at the birth of the child who has come of age today.
I should particularly like to thank the various associations—perhaps, above all, the Tenant Farmers Association, as it would have been easiest for it to take a negative attitude. It did not, and it and its policy adviser, Jeremy Moody, played a key role in maintaining progress throughout. That organisation was ably supported by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the young farmers associations, and the dialogue has been good.

Mr. Llwyd: Will the Secretary of State comment on the attitude to the Bill of the larger of the two farming unions in Wales? Has he received representations from it?

Mr. Waldegrave: As is well known, the two organisations have taken a different view. I had a productive and positive meeting with them during one of my visits to the Principality. They remain sceptical. I am not claiming that there is total unanimity; some members of the National Farmers Union in different parts of the country remain doubtful. I do not want to over-exaggerate, but it is fair to say that there is wide consensus in a pluralistic industry. In my experience, most' of the participants are characters with strongly held, independent views. Therefore, I think that the level and extent of agreement is remarkable.
I should add one additional word of thanks. The House is always sympathetic to constituency points. Without getting into trouble over advertising, I should like to thank the principal legal experts on the subject, Burges Salmon and Andrew Densham, and others of my constituents who have helped my Department and Members of Parliament with advice during the passage of the Bill. As I am talking on a personal basis, may I say that I should have begun my speech by repeating a declaration of interest? As the House knows, I have a shareholding in a family tenant farm. It is unaffected by the Bill, as we have not made the mistake of introducing retrospective legislation.
The Bill's aims, as we said on Second Reading, are to tackle the decline in tenancies offered, to open up opportunities to new entrants and to provide flexibility for agriculture to remain internationally competitive. The background must be not that the present position is a satisfactory one that we need to maintain but that it is unsatisfactory. Whatever the theoretical intentions behind previous Acts passed by the House may have been, we know what the position is.
We know that the great majority of tenancies that are being let are for fewer than two years under various loophole arrangements that have been devised—largely by Burges Salmon and other of my constituents. We are not removing rights that apply to secure tenancies that are being let. They are not being let—instead, short, loophole tenancies are being let. The number of new tenancies under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is minuscule—it has almost dried up. That has brought the present legislation into disrepute and has brought the Tenant Farmers Association and others to their present conclusions.
Many of my hon. Friends are knowledgeable on the subject and, as has been said, the Bill's main feature is to respect the freely entered into contract between landlord and tenant. There may have been periods in our social history when there has been a great imbalance one way or the other between the two partners. I would not deny that that happened in the 19th century, but if we look at the modern British farming industry we see that those days are long past. We can expect a reasonable degree of negotiation and a reasonable balancing of interests to emerge from freely entered into tenancies.
I think that we shall see a variety of such tenancies after September this year—some for long periods, some for medium-length periods and some for short tenancies. The length of each tenancy will reflect what is economically sensible and what suits the best interests of both parties. It will be affected by the nature of the holding and so on. The key point for new entrants is that, if they can overcome the all-important initial hurdle of gaining access to land, at least they have a chance to show their mettle and build up a track record and a long-term business.
All landlords want good tenants, and most want to keep them once they have found them. Longer tenancies will flow from mutual trust, not legal compulsion. We have tried that policy and it has not worked. That fact was well expressed in a press release issued by the Tenant Farmers Association, which states:
It must be better to bring more land on to the market than to face the present steep decline in the long term let sector, one which would continue if the law imposed a long term tenancy.
That view now prevails in all the main industry organisations. Sir David Naish, the president of the NFU, is on record as saying:
tenancy reform will breathe new life into the farming industry".
We have made a number of amendments to the Bill, both here and in another place, which we think have improved it. Some of those amendments have been introduced with the agreement of the Labour party; all of them, without exception, have been fully supported by the industry. Others have been argued for by my hon. Friends, as we heard today.
We have also included a new clause—a key complementary step—in the Finance Bill that will extend inheritance tax relief to new lettings. All in all, we are doing everything within our power to revitalise the tenanted sector.
Some commentators have expressed doubts about the extent to which we will succeed and about the lack of security for tenants. However, I have not heard anyone suggest a practical way in which the Bill could do more to persuade those who own agricultural land to provide new tenancy opportunities.
I was a little saddened by the fact that the Labour party voted against Second Reading. It seemed unwise for the Opposition to fly in the face of such wide support in the farming community and I had hoped that they would take a more constructive approach.
It is perhaps ironic that the House seems to take a more old-fashioned attitude to such matters than one would expect. The noble Lord Carter, in explaining the Labour party's position in another place, adopted a more temperate approach to the matter. I would hardly expect Labour Members to agree now that we have been right all


along and they have been wrong. One lives in hope, but I think that it would be surprising if they were to change their minds tonight.
I make one point to the Opposition. We have taken great care to avoid retrospection in the Bill. We could have decided quite reasonably—in fact, many people urged us to do so—to go back and clear up what many consider to be the mess that Labour created with its 1976 legislation. We could have decided to abolish the succession rights that applied to pre-1984 tenancies, to give security to generations of successors and so on. There was quite a lot of pressure on us to do that.
We resisted the temptation on the ground that in this area, above all others, retrospective legislation is bad. We did not intend to follow Labour's precedent of passing retrospective legislation. Where the Bill might have had retrospective effect unintentionally or indirectly—such as in relation to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who followed the long-established Evesham custom with which the House is now expert—we took steps to amend it in order to avoid that consequence.
Surely it is right to ask the Opposition to make the same commitment today. I think that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), made the same point. I advise people that the risk of a Labour Government in the foreseeable future is very small. Nonetheless, others are less well informed than me, about the matter. Some landowners—for reasons best known to themselves—may harbour such fears. If they are to be encouraged to let land now—I think that that is the unanimous view of the House—it is vital that they should not be put off by the spectre of retrospective legislation introduced by a future Labour Government. In order to remove any disincentive to letting that may stem from such fears—unjustified though they may be—I call upon the Opposition to make a firm and clear pledge today not to introduce any future legislation on the subject which would have a retrospective effect.
Opposition Members have referred to monitoring today and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has responded positively to their points. We should allow the Bill to work effectively and not damage its chances of working by passing remarks about it or by making promises or pledges into the future. That is the least that the Labour party should be prepared to do in order to give the Bill a proper chance to work effectively in the interests of tenants.
I believe that we have improved the Bill a great deal during consideration in this and in another place. It is now a very good Bill which goes as far as it is reasonable to go. We should now look with confidence to a significant boost in the tenanted sector from 1 September this year onwards. Perhaps then the distant echoes of 1976 will finally die away. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I am not sure about the distant echoes of 1976, given that I am closely associated with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1976. I shall refer to that later in my speech.
The Labour party has opposed the legislation and we stand four square in our continued opposition to it. My hon. Friends and I have put our case on a number of occasions in the House and we have taken that position

because we are fundamentally committed to security of tenure for tenant farmers. We are concerned that the legislation will lead to inadequate security of tenure for tenant farmers. We regard that as, first, socially unjust and, secondly, not in the long-term interests of agriculture.
I do not need to restate all the arguments—indeed, I touched on some earlier this afternoon in relation to monitoring. We believe that we should be united in our desire to encourage long-term, secure tenancies. People who wish to move into farming should have a proper opportunity to make a profit, build up capital and provide an honest living for themselves and their families. That is why we are committed to the family farm.
We do not wish to stratify the industry; there may be a role for contract farming. As I said in the Second Reading debate, some people begin farming with contract farming companies and then enter the industry in their own right. We have set out our proposals for encouraging new entrants to go into the industry which I believe will prove extremely constructive.
We have tackled the issue of milk quotas which is a real barrier for young farmers entering the industry. Often in the past, people entered that type of farming because of the regular milk cheque. We have tackled the issue of the way in which county council holdings have ceased to provide a stepping stone into the industry. There are many reasons for that, for which I not blame the present Government. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) for his intervention.
I blame the Government for the fact that many Conservative-controlled councils have been selling those holdings and we are concerned that that will continue if there is further reorganisation of local government. We have already touched on our attitude to tenure and taxation and the prospect of taking advantage of European Union legislation on retirement for farmers—many of whom continue farming into their 70s, if not later—to create the opportunity for a son, or daughter or an outsider to enter the industry. I do not think that we need any lessons or lectures—to his credit, the Minister has not sought to deliver any—about encouraging new entrants into the industry.
Earlier this afternoon, I referred to the Northfield committee report, which contains a lot of viable material. The committee had a balanced membership—I think that is to the credit of John Silkin, who is no longer with us—which was certainly not loaded in favour of the Labour party. I shall refer to its report later.
I shall deal with the question of security of tenure most constructively by referring to the remarks of the Minister of State in his winding-up speech on Second Reading. He was challenged by me on the issue and said:
I was interested in a press release that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East issued on 18 November 1994, in which he said:
`Security of tenure is essential for the family farm' —
as though that was a newly-discovered truth, which had not dawned on the Conservative Benches for many a long year. I was surprised that neither he nor his hon. Friends mentioned the construction of the Bill in clauses 1, 5, 6, 7, 16, 23, 24 and 25, all of which concern various aspects of security that are central to the subject of agricultural tenancy".
The Minister went on to say:
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shows an inability to distinguish between the period of an agreement and the security embodied in that agreement. The Bill is drafted in terms of the


definition of farm business tenancy: willing partners come together, in mutual interest, to define their rights and responsibilities, and to make very clear one with another the length of time that they agree a tenancy should run. The Bill gives precise legal protection on the ending of a tenancy. Once agreed and signed, it is cast iron and copper-bottomed and provides excellent security of tender. That is the whole basis and construction of the Bill."—[Official Report, 6 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 105.]
It may be that there is a difference in language, but the phrase "security of tenure" is explicit, in my view, in that it does not refer to whether a contract will be honoured, nor to how much money a farmer might get if the contract is terminated prematurely. It does not refer to how copper-bottomed a five-year or 10–year tenancy may be. It is either about lifetime tenancies or about long-term fixed tenancies. In relation to the individual farmer and his family who are running a farming business, the phrase "security of tenure" relates to the security that he has to go on farming.
The legislation will transform the position of new lettings, and there can be no argument about that. The new farm business tenancies will come into operation on 1 September 1995 and, for the purpose of shorthand, I shall describe these as Tory tenancies. Already in place—and, as the Minister pointed out, not interfered with by the legislation—will be the traditional tenancies governed by earlier legislation, and for shorthand I shall call them Labour tenancies.
Within the group of Labour tenancies, two types of tenancy operate. The first group are the tenancies governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1976, which is still operative in relation to some tenancies and about which the Minister feels strongly—as, I am sure, do many other owners of land. My local newspaper described his speech on the matter at the Conservative party conference last year as a personal attack on me. I am not sure whether that was a fair judgment, but the right hon. Gentleman certainly articulated his bitter opposition to the principle that a son or daughter of a tenant farmer, who has worked perhaps for the bulk of his or her life on the holding, should have a qualified right to succeed to the tenancy.
Nothing that has been said in the debate has altered my view on the subject. The Minister may accept that something should be encouraged on a voluntary basis, but I believe that there is a case for encouraging a working son or daughter on a tenant farm to have the opportunity to succeed, and we enacted legislation to give a guarantee of that. There is a Scottish tradition in that area, and I accept that it has not existed for the same duration in England.
The second type of Labour tenancy is the tenancy governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984, which the Government enacted to remove the succession provisions. The tenancies are governed either by the 1976 Act or by the 1984 Act, although there was a consolidation of the legislation in 1986. Basically, the new Tory tenancies will be in place from 1 September 1995. We also have the Labour tenancies, within which are two groups—those with succession rights and those without.

Mr. Waldegrave: Let me make clear that we have no antipathy at all to the idea of children succeeding their parents in farming. My neighbour in Somerset is a fifth generation tenant, and a fine farmer. The trouble is that

the introduction of the compulsory legal principle has not preserved the system, and it has so dried up the supply of tenancies that it has become a dead letter. It is the failure in reality—as to the theoretical principle—to which we have objected, and we have come to believe that radical reform is necessary.

Dr. Strang: I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position.
I am coming to what I regard as the crunch point. We want to give the legislation an opportunity to work. That means in essence that people who let land after 1 September 1995 must have the prospect of their contract remaining. Despite the fact that I have not used the word "retrospective" in the context of the Bill, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word on this issue.
In that sense, I am happy to give an undertaking that a Labour Government will not legislate retrospectively, and any new tenancy created after 1 September 1995 will be honoured. If we can treat the tenancies as contracts, a contract for five years will last for five years if the legislation provides that it can continue by mutual agreement. The same will apply should the contract be for 10 years, 50 years or whatever. No Labour Government will legislate to break that contract or tenancy. I cannot be clearer than that.
We are saying to the industry—including the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the young farmers organisations in Wales and England which supported the agreement that provided the basis for the legislation—that we will honour the position that they have adopted and that the Government have put into the legislation, and we will give it an opportunity to work.

Mr. Waldegrave: May I be the first to welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment? It will help. Although there is no doubt about what he said about no future Labour Government breaking a contract, would such a Government convert a tenancy into some other form of tenancy? The fear may be that a five-year or 10–year tenancy will be converted into a tenancy of some other form which might last longer. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that contracts will be honoured as they are made?

Dr. Strang: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Edward Gamier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I shall give way, although I wish to wind up my remarks. A number of hon. Members—particularly Labour Members—wish to speak.

Mr. Garnier: I accept and welcome the undertaking on retrospection that the hon. Gentleman has given the House relating to what he calls "Tory tenancies". Can he explain in a few words the Labour party's policy on any new legislation that it might wish to introduce and that might affect tenancies not covered by the 1995 measure?

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a constructive intervention. Of course, any Labour Government reserve the right to enact new legislation in this area. It may well be that, in 10 years' time—from the Opposition Benches—the hon. Gentleman will appeal to a Labour Government to introduce new legislation. The point is that legislation such as this will relate only to the


new tenancies. It may apply to tenancies that commence in 2010, or whenever. [Interruption.] Did I say that the hon. Gentleman would be in opposition in 10 years' time? I am sorry. It may be during the next Parliament, or the one after—I am not sure. It is conceivable that the next Labour Government will be in power for longer than the Conservative party. Sixteen years is long enough—not long for an agricultural tenancy, but long enough to have the Conservative party in office.
We welcome the constructive way in which the Bill was dealt with in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and other members of the Committee helped to achieve security and protection for tenants, which we value.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The industry will welcome the hon. Gentleman's important clarification on retrospective legislation. If a Labour Government wanted to legislate on existing tenancies when they could naturally be brought to an end, when the period of notice to quit could operate, would such tenancies be subject to the provisions of new Labour legislation—or would they be allowed to continue on the existing terms for a further period?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman seeks to draw me into impractical areas of debate. I accept his good intentions, but I met the essential point that anyone letting land on the basis of the Bill from 1 September 1995 will know that the contract between landlord and tenant will not be altered by Labour legislation.
We want to give the Bill an opportunity to work, but we will vote against it because we are committed to the principle of security for tenants. The key point is that we will not implement legislation in a way that would prevent the Bill working as the industry and the Government want it to work.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on Third Reading of what has been described as a milestone in landlord and tenant legislation. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who piloted the Bill through Committee. They listened to the Country Landowners Association, National Farmers Union and associations representing young farmers and tenant farmers. I ought to declare that I am a member of the CLA and NFU and I farm, so I have an interest in the Bill—although its provisions do not affect me directly.
Land in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be farmed to the highest possible standard. The Bill can only enhance that standard. The word "stewardship" has not been mentioned, but it should be. All involved in agriculture should give stewardship the highest priority.
It was a remarkable milestone for all sections of the industry to reach an historic agreement on a deregulatory measure. All sides of the industry having agreed, my right hon. Friend drafted a Bill and brought it before the House, and today we are giving it a Third Reading. Is it not remarkable that the only people who cannot see that it is a worthwhile measure are Labour Members? Surely it is better to have a let farm than one that is not let. When, under Labour in 1976, a farm was let to a tenant and

succeeding tenants, the letting market dried up almost overnight—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) knows full well.
It is sad that Labour Members will vote against the Bill tonight, because they will be sending a signal to the industry not to let farms under its provisions. There are 10,000 short-term agreements.

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of distorting the position. We made it absolutely clear that new tenancies under the legislation would be honoured. I hope that he will not seek to muddy the waters and give landowners or tenants a misleading impression.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome that intervention, in the sense that I hope to be proved wrong and hope that the industry will have the confidence to let under the Bill's provisions, because I desperately want a flourishing landlord and tenant sector. The Opposition's stance can only endanger that process, which is why I appeal to them to think again, even at this late hour. I say as loudly and clearly as I know how that it is better to have a let farm than a farm not let.
I desperately want to encourage young farmers. As I said on Second Reading, the average age of tenants is 55. I want it reduced considerably. Only new blood and fresh and innovative ideas will make the industry flourish. I fear that the Opposition will impede that process.
I fear also for the 40,000 workers in agriculture. Whatever Labour does, farms will inevitably become bigger. The one thing that will accelerate enlargement is the absence of a flourishing landlord and tenant sector. I want lots of people letting farms under the legislation, and I am confident that the current 10,000 short-term arrangements to skirt the 1976 and 1986 legislation will be encompassed by the Bill.
Even if the average size is only 100 acres, that will produce the 1 million acres that the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors predicted. Even the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) predicted 3,200 new tenancies on an average farm size of 250 acres. On Second Reading, I calculated that would produce a total of 750,000 acres. There is no disputing the fact that a substantial amount of land will fall under the scope of the legislation.

Mr. Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of the short lets to circumvent existing legislation and Gladstone v. Bower agreements were made by established farmers and cover small parcels of land tacked on to an already flourishing situation? Also, not all Opposition parties support the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I have misgivings, and I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain why.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: In my experience, the number of short-term agreements are increasing rather than decreasing. The number of contractual, Gladstone v. Bower agreements have actually increased over the past few years, because of uncertainty in the industry about embarking on full landlord and tenant letting under the 1986 legislation. I hope that the Bill will reverse that trend. I agree with the Opposition that longer-term lettings are wanted; only then can the tenant secure borrowings and plan for a proper farm system. I hope that the industry will have the confidence to let for reasonable terms, to give younger tenants more opportunities.
I pay sincere tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for playing a major part in changes to inheritance tax legislation: equalising relief for let and vacant land is a major plank and will encourage lettings. But I would like him to go slightly further. There are two other tax impediments that may—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Inhibit?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
There are two other tax impediments that may inhibit landlords in letting land. The first one is income tax treatment. Vacant farms come under schedule D and are treated as a trade. Let farms come under schedule A and are treated as an investment. The reliefs that are available under A are much more limited than under D. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give consideration to the equalisation of tax treatment.
The second tax anomaly that will inhibit landlords in letting farms is treatment under capital gains roll-over relief. Again, there is different treatment for let and vacant farms. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will consider whether that anomaly can be overcome.
I look forward to speculating on what the Bill, when enacted, will do. I would like the situation in the commercial property letting market to apply, whereby let commercial properties are worth the same—in many instances they are worth more—as vacant properties. That would be entirely healthy for agriculture. It would mean that let land and vacant land values were more nearly the same. At present, there is a 50 to 75 per cent. differential. I should like values to come much closer together, and that is possible.
I was discussing the Bill with some large institution farmers. They are beginning to have some exciting ideas about how institutional money might be put into agricultural land. Under the Bill, they would have the certainty of getting vacant possession at any time they wanted it. They would be able to let land to new, young entrants into farming. I hope that they would do so, for that is precisely what we want to see. I hope that that will happen because at this moment some agile minds are considering how it might be achieved.

Mr. Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall be delighted to give way to a person with an agile mind.

Mr. Tipping: I am delighted to be thought to have an agile mind. I shall use that agility in trying to establish the hon. Gentleman's purpose. Earlier, he talked about getting new, young farmers on to the land, but now he is talking about institutions being able to get rid of new, young farmers when they want to do so. Clearly there is a contradiction.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Either the hon. Gentleman was not listening or he did not understand what I was saying. I was talking about more institutional money being available to buy land specifically to let to younger tenants. That is exactly what I want to see. At present, younger people cannot afford to buy and farm the bulk of the agricultural land that is held. The capital involved is so

great and the return on capital so low that unless someone has a huge amount of capital behind him or is lucky enough, as I was, to inherit a farm, it is impossible to enter the industry.
As a Conservative, I want to encourage young entrepreneurial individuals, who perhaps have been involved in the industry as contractors or merchants, for example. I hope that they will have the opportunity to farm a small amount of land, thereby getting on to the farming ladder. We want to encourage entrepreneurial and innovative people to go into the industry for the benefit of that industry, so that our industry remains the most efficient in Europe.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. I urge the House to give it a Third Reading as soon as possible so that it can be put on to the statute book forthwith and the industry can benefit thereby.

Mr. Enright: First, I apologise to the Minister for having to be absent during his wind-up speech. There was a joint meeting of the all-party rugby league group. I had to attend to put the case for the Featherstone rugby league club. I know that Mr. Deputy Speaker is even more devoted than am I. It was imperative that I should attend.
I was saddened to hear the Secretary of State praise the statement from the Tenant Farmers Association. In a previous incarnation, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for good and clear English. I shall read one of the crucial passages in the statement, which states:
Instead, much professional effort is devoted to using the short term alternatives within the present law (such as 'Gladstone Bower' lettings which can not even be as along as two years), MAFF approved lettings (no more than five years and effectively unrepeatable) or to creating contrivances to avoid it.
That is the most appallingly unclear English that one has ever come across.
I invite the Secretary of State to read the conclusions. The last sentence, which is the last place in which one should make a mistake, is, to put it mildly, wrongly punctuated. The grammar and punctuation are wrong, but above all the reasoning is wrong.
No one would disagree with the Tenant Farmers Association that the present situation is not good. Indeed, it is bad, and it needs to be made better. The Bill merely makes it less worse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has said, it will not create a vehicle to bring about the sort of justice that we want.
I shall briefly touch upon a subject on which the Secretary of State is well versed—the question of foedere aequo, foederi in aequo. We, the Opposition, are trying to introduce a measure of fairness in agreements. It is not fairness when City institutions become involved. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) sounded, although he tried to clarify his position later, like someone seeking a sort of highland clearance. He did not give the impression that he was seeking to encourage the future of real tenant farmers.
We in the manufacturing industry and we who represent mining areas know only too well the destruction that can be caused by short-term City funds. City funds are exactly the sort of funds that are not required for the long-term interests of farming. I am amazed—I apologise,


Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not amazed, because the hon. Gentleman is a Tory. I am not amazed that he could say such a thing.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman misinterpreted what I said. There are few farmers who do not have some form of City funds, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, involved in their operations. They are called farm overdrafts. What is better: to have a long-term City institution owning the land on which they have a low return or for the tenant farmer to have an overdraft in the knowledge that short-term interest rates can fluctuate violently? Within the past three years, interest rates have increased to over 15 per cent., and that is base rate. What is better: to have a long-term stable arrangement or a short-term unstable arrangement?

Mr. Enright: If I had any evidence that institutions were lending money long-term on stable low interest rates, I would be delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Such evidence is not available. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the banks. They have been truly appalling in the money that they have been screwing out of farmers and of people in many other industries.
We are maintaining that this is not a fair Bill. It does not achieve parity between the landlord and the tenant farmer. The Government may say—it is a philosophy—that the landlord should be completely in control of what, is happening, but we, the Opposition, would maintain that that gives the landlord the ability considerably to exploit tenants.
There is talk about a massive consensus. The Secretary of State has said that there is a consensus between the Tenant Farmers Association, that well-known follower of Gracchi agricultural reform, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union, which was so radical in the beliefs that it professed. We have also the young farmers, like David Archer, who is trying to get a contract for a new firm. These radical organisations are coming into agreement. What an amazing thing. The amazing thing would be if they in no way agreed.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said—I shall finish on this point, as many hon. Members wish to speak—that the Bill was near perfection. Near perfection, indeed. We shall certainly monitor him on that. If he thinks that the Bill is near perfection, his standards are so low and his aims are in the mud instead of to the sky. We want to look after the long-term tenants, who are still being thrown to the wolves in the Bill.

Mr. Garnier: I almost feel that I should congratulate the honourable Agricola for Hemsworth on his restraint during the past few minutes, for using only six Latin words during his entire speech. In Committee, I think that he spoke Latin on a number of occasions. On Second Reading, he may also have used Latin as well. It is a great pleasure to see someone who descends from the great Latin scholars and who farms so heavily the gooseberry patches of Hemsworth—[interruption.] Is it rhubarb? That such great rhubarb should emanate from Hemsworth is something to be noted and welcomed.

Mr. Enright: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be aware that, in previous years, the

fields in Hemsworth used to vote Conservative. I hope that he has taken on board the fact that this year they are voting Liberal Democrat.

Mr. Garnier: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is bragging or complaining. Perhaps we will draw a veil over his personal problems.
The Bill is widely welcomed throughout the industry, and it is a matter of some sadness that the most notable thing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) found able to say during the course of his short remarks was—I hope that I quote him correctly—we stand four square in opposition to the Bill, because we are concerned for security of tenure. I paraphrased that. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has, with his colleagues, come forward with that attitude.
We had an interesting discussion of the detail of the Bill in Committee. Many amendments were tabled and withdrawn by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). It was a sensible Committee, if I may say so, and we have come up with a good Bill. It generated an almost total lack of controversy—I make no criticism of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who represents the Liberal Democrats and who was unable to be in Committee for the most part—because it came to the House and to another place with the support of the whole industry. I shall not go through the acronyms of all the bodies that are represented in the TRIG. None the less, the Bill is welcome, and I am here today to welcome it on behalf of my landowning and tenant farmers in Harborough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has already mentioned the other wing or leg of the argument that will help to increase the amount of acres let in England and Wales—the alteration to the capital tax provisions. It is worth mentioning that it is not every Cabinet Minister who can persuade the Treasury to yield to his blandishments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is to be congratulated on the subtle and effective way in which he has managed to persuade the Treasury to accede to his requests. It was a worthwhile aim, and I am delighted that he was so successful.
I have heard from a number of landowners that, because of the Bill, they will definitely let land as from 1 September. I regret that they may change their minds or feel rather less comfortable in having made those promises having heard the attitude of the official Opposition. It is regrettable that the Opposition are not coming at the Bill in the spirit in which it has been presented to Parliament and in the spirit in which it has been welcomed by all other interested parties.
In my view, the Bill restores balance. It is fair to say that, in the early 19th century, the balance in the relationship between the landlord and tenant was almost entirely in favour of the landlord. That situation pertained throughout the 19th century. Throughout this century, particularly since the second world war, the balance has gone too far in favour of the tenant, to the detriment of farming and of landowners. I believe that the Bill at last redresses the balance, so that both sides can now look at each other with equality. It is a pity that the Opposition do not recognise that.
It is perhaps ironic that the Opposition, who are so against the hereditary principle when they discuss the other place, should be so in favour of the hereditary


tenancy legislation of 1976. I wish that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who has made it clear that he will not act retrospectively, in the unlikely event of the Labour party coming to power in some future time, on tenancies under the Bill, had been clearer. He inaccurately described them as Tory tenancies. I think that industry tenancies is more accurate, or TRIG tenancies would be the better short form. It is a pity that Opposition Members seem to be putting in doubt the confidence of farmers and landowners who so avidly want to see the Bill work, and who want to see additional land let to new and young entrants to farming.

Mr. Llwyd: I shall be brief, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
Undoubtedly, there was a need for the Bill. In the 1900s, 90 per cent. of the land was let. Today, the figure is 30 per cent. I suppose that the Bill is an attempt to address that problem. I do not support the Bill, because of some misgivings, which I shall briefly enumerate now. Although balance is important, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, there has to be balance between the rights of the tenant and those of the landlord. I do not think that the Bill addresses that balance.
Farming is, of course, a long-term enterprise. There is no such thing as real, useful short-term farming. I do not know what the future holds, nor do I profess to have a monopoly of wisdom on the subject. I sincerely believe, however, that there are problems in the Bill.
It is quite evident that there will he short-term lets, as they are more beneficial to landlords. Short-term lets are not good for the environment. They are not particularly good for communities, for tenants or for the land at large.
I made the point in Committee about Tir Cymen, the Welsh version of country stewardship schemes. I am still not certain about the answer. Will the tenure schemes that are typically available under that scheme be available if land is let, say, for two or three years, or whatever? I still wish to hear from the Minister at some stage about that matter.
The farming industry is the backbone of our rural communities. It is a long-term occupation, and in my view is unlike any other business, because more often than not it provides a home as well. There is a village in my constituency where virtually every farm is let. Some 90 per cent. of the occupants of the village are directly involved in farming. It is important, therefore, that the Bill should work.
We understand full well the notion of freedom of contract, the equality of bargaining and so on, but one must look at supply and demand. There is an insufficient supply of land, but there is a great demand. Therefore, that in itself will dictate terms that may well be onerous for all concerned.
The amendments today are welcome and useful, and I wholeheartedly endorse each one of them. They show that the Minister listened to debates in Committee, for which I am grateful.
Earlier, the Minister curtly put down one of his hon. Friends, saying that he had no control over the timing of the RICS guidelines. That was disingenuous, because, on many occasions during the passage of the Bill, he relied on those

coming forward. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was right: we may find ourselves in no man's land—I am sorry to use the word "land"—where people go on to the land without the necessary back-up of those provisions. Therefore, I again request the Minister please to bring as much influence as he can to bear on that point.
The change in inheritance tax has been mentioned. That measure is a double-edged sword. If the big investors move in, land values will escalate, which cannot be good for farming. With regard to the retirement scheme for farmers, European Union moneys are available, so why do we not apply for them?
I listened carefully to the debate about monitoring. It is 100 per cent. vital to many communities that we monitor the Bill. In my constituency, one family in every five relies wholly or in part on agriculture. That is how important the Bill is to me, as it is to many other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I said on Second Reading that the Bill was a curate's egg, that it needed strengthening and bettering in many regards, but I am afraid that in many respects that has not happened. However, I do not have a monopoly on the future. I sincerely hope that the Government are right, and if they are, I hope that I shall have the good grace to admit it in due course.
I had misgivings, and I still have those misgivings. Monitoring the situation and making available parliamentary time if necessary are musts. I appreciate that the Government have in all sincerity tried to address the problem. I hope that they have been successful, but I still have grave doubts about it.

Mr. Tyler: I have only one major quibble with the way in which the Minister introduced the Third Reading, and that is that he implied that his was the parentage of the Bill. If the Child Support Agency was to look at it more carefully, it would say that he might be the adoptive or the foster parent, but the real parentage was that of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group.
We should all pay tribute to the way in which the industry came together, without which the legislation would have been impossible. There was no sign of it coming forward from the Ministry until the Tenant Farmers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the young farmers got together. That is a tribute to the work they have done.
I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for persuading the Chancellor to make the important change in inheritance tax, but I remind him, as I reminded the House on Second Reading, that three years ago his colleagues on the Finance Bill Committee voted down just such a reform when I put it to that Committee. We must make it clear that that is not a concession; it is to try to introduce the end of some discrimination in tax. That is why hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is long overdue.
There seems to be some consensus now in the House that the present situation with regard to tenancy is unsatisfactory. Even the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said that the Bill would make things less worse. If all the legislation that came before us in the House and emerged into the open air made things less worse, we would all be much happier than we sometimes are at the standard and quality of legislation that is passed.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Stroud said that it was his objective to ensure that the purpose of legislation such as this was to ensure that there were freely negotiated contracts. It seemed from what the Minister said in introducing this debate that he concurred. I suggest that freely negotiated contracts are not themselves the end; they are the means to an end. The ends upon which we should surely all be agreed are threefold.
First, there should be ready access for new entrants. I think that that is agreed throughout the House. Secondly, we should seek wider involvement in agriculture generally. It filled with me with dismay to hear the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) expecting a greater involvement of the large City institutions in the ownership of land. That is not the purpose of this legislation. Surely what we should be seeking is the greater involvement of a number of smaller enterprises, giving them more opportunity. The short-termism of the City institutions is not on all fours with the long-termism of stewardship to which the hon. Member referred.
Thirdly, we want to try to give wider opportunities to those who are making a success of agriculture, but on a small scale. When they seek to expand those opportunities, we want to ensure that more land is available.
It follows from all this that our previous discussion this evening about monitoring the success of the new tenancy, arrangements, the new farm business tenancies, will be extremely important. We all take seriously what the Minister said in answer to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House.
It also follows that we need a period of stability to build up the confidence to enable those changes to take place. Therefore, I too welcome the declaration from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that the Opposition will not be seeking to introduce any retrospection if and when they are in a position to review the legislation.
I imagine that it is unlikely that any incoming Government, of whatever colour, or of multi-coloured, would seek to undo this legislation in a relatively short time, unless it had clearly gone wrong. I hope that even the present occupants of the Treasury Bench would accept that, if things have clearly gone wrong, we shall all have to return to the matter within a short period.
I do not have time to go into any great detail, but there is one nagging worry that I think hon. Members on both sides still have, and that concerns the timetable for the preparation and publication of the RICS guidelines. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that those are brought forward as speedily as possible, even if they are not in their final form, for consultation and fine tuning.
Subject only to that particular concern, I welcome the legislation, and I hope for all our sakes that we will not have to return to the issue in the near future.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank the Minister for handling the Bill with his usual courtesy. He has been wise in listening to the industry throughout its stages. Thanks must also be given to the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, the CLA, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, which have all worked extremely hard on the Bill during its passage here and in the

other place. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Carter said that he believed that they could fairly be described as the corporate midwives of the Bill.
However, the Opposition must express some concern about the amount of horse trading that has occurred behind closed doors to arrive at the industry agreement so often referred to by the Government.
The Bill addresses a serious problem in the United Kingdom. The decline in the numbers of people farming is a worrying trend. Farming is still the backbone of the rural economy in most parts of the United Kingdom—to save Britain's rural communities from terminal decline, we need a vital and energetic farming industry. To do that, we need urgently to increase the number of new entrants, and to decrease the average age of farmers, something which hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed.
We all agree that, to increase the number of new entrants into farming, we must increase the letting of land. The Government, with the Bill, appear to believe that the only way to do that is to remove the security of tenure of agricultural tenancies.
How can we believe that the Government are sincere about encouraging more young farmers to enter farming, when all they have done is take from the people for whom they are supposedly providing? All they have given young farmers is less security, less time to obtain a return on their investments, and less of an incentive for banks to lend them the original investment in the first place.
We have been told that banks will be just as willing to lend money on even short-term tenancies, as the Bill provides a range of compensation measures. Those compensation measures will allow the farmer to regain his money from landlord-approved improvements, and some tenant right aspects. But have the Government heard that banks do not just want their original investment back—they actually charge something called interest? How is a small tenant farmer supposed to pay such sums back with only a two to three-year tenancy?
The Government have been nothing if not constant in doing everything in their power to wreck any chance of growth in the British dairy industry. Their policy on milk quotas, the uncertainty in milk marketing, and now the Bill, all make it impossible for a new entrant to dairy farming. On Third Reading in the other place and on Report here, we have seen Government hostility to protection of milk quotas for tenant farmers.
This is not a Bill for new entrants on small tenant farms. This is a Bill for big farmers to get bigger. As has been said, it will increase the ownership of land by companies with no interest in the rural community or the environment, but a single interest in increasing profits.
We may have to consider the sector that we are discussing again when we are in government. It is encouraging that Conservative Members show so much concern about that possibility, but methinks they do protest too much: if people in the industry were not sure that we would form the next Government, they would not be concerned about our views on the Bill. As I have said, we may have to consider the sector again, but to encourage new entrants we shall not legislate retrospectively.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) expressed sadness about the Opposition's decision to vote against the Bill. Let me


make it clear that, although we agree with the Bill's stated aims, we do not believe that it provides the way forward. It will not work. We consider ours a legitimate position, and we shall ask the House to reject the Bill for that reason alone.

Mr. Jack: The Opposition have given a typically negative response to an enormously positive piece of legislation. Conservative Members have a right to know their attitude, and they have told us what it is—in uncompromising terms that will be noted not just in the House but in the world outside.
I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) for his kind words about the courtesies that were extended throughout the Committee stage. I think that there was a genuine wish for those proceedings to be conducted properly, and I thank the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. At times, the discussion was learned, because I had experts behind me. I would not say that I had too many in front of me, but they made their contributions to the smooth passage of the Bill and the proper probing of areas that people outside the House wished to be raised within it.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West spoke briefly about banks. It is remarkable—especially in view of the amendments relating to mortgages that have been moved this evening—that the banks have shown increasing enthusiasm for the measure. They see opportunities to assist agriculture and to make more land available. I rebut the hon. Gentleman's criticism of their attitudes.
The positive side of the Bill was highlighted by my hon. Friend—my hon. and learned Friend, indeed; I congratulate him—the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). He praised the legislation, neatly—and forensically—exposing the Opposition's failure to understand our analysis of why it will succeed.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the positive and assiduous way in which he suggested amendments, probed, put pressure on the Government in the right place, and enabled us to present useful measures today. He said that he considered the proposed length of tenancies reasonable, and I agree: it is in the interests of landlords to find good-quality tenants in whom they can have long-term confidence.
That is the basis of the Bill. The Opposition fail to understand that it is based on mutuality—on landlord and tenant acting together for a common purpose. Both landlord and tenant will get a good deal, and there will be security to protect their respective interests.
My hon. Friend rightly drew our attention to the importance of innovation in both human and monetary terms. In Committee, he also drew our attention to matters connected with privity. We shall have an opportunity to explore such matters further when we debate the Second Reading of the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) later this month. My hon. Friend will know of the warm way in which the consultation document has dealt with the

issues that he presented to the Committee so carefully, and he can take pride in the fact that the matter is to be addressed by the House.
The hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Clwyd, South-West entertained us with their views on the Bill. I have already dealt with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. The hon. Member for North Cornwall rightly praised the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, but left what he described as a "nagging doubt" about his party's attitude. He spoke of a need for extra measures to encourage more lettings, but—as always happens with Liberals—did not let us into the secrets. He will be probed in due course. I welcome his comments about monitoring, however.
The hon, Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) drew our attention to the importance of the RICS guidelines. I hope that I can make it clear that, while I cannot make clear statements on behalf of the RICS, I accept the need for an early publication of the document: people want to see the basis of the advice, and I shall convey the message to the RICS.
We wrote to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 31 May 1994 about Tir Cymen. If points in my letter still require attention, I shall be delighted to deal with them in further correspondence with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Llwyd: rose—

Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. There is not much time left, and I want to deal with some of the other points that have been made.
The hon. Gentleman expressed misgivings about the length of tenancies, and about the environment. I refer him to an excellent article by Marie Skinner in Farmers Weekly, to which I referred in Committee. Marie Skinner said that there was no direct relationship between the length of a tenancy and the quality of farming. I think that, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the terms of the type of agreement that can be reached between landlord and tenant, he will see that some of those environmental matters can be properly agreed.
As usual, the hon. Member for Hemsworth took up points of detail. Let me pick up a failing that the hon. Gentleman revealed. He persisted in describing my right hon. Friend the Minister as "the Secretary of State"; let me refer him to section 1 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act 1919, which he will find singularly good reading. It gives the history of why we have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Let me also point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was David Archer who wanted to become a tenant of the adjoining estate land, and Simon Pemberton who denied him that right. I, too, am an "Archers" fan.
Finally, let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). This week, The Daily Telegraph, of all newspapers, told us:
Labour seeks to capture 'Tory shires—.
I read on with keen interest. The report said:
Labour launched a new attempt to capture the 'Tory shires' yesterday with plans to boost wages, business investment and
jobs.


The Labour rural millennium beckoned; but only new Labour could, with that in mind, then decide to vote against the very Bill that adds a great new dynamic to the rural economy.
It is the farm business tenancy that gives the real opportunity for innovation, initiative and youth, and allows the farm to be a centre for new business in a rural economy. It is what will enable the Tory party to sustain its support for that rural economy.
The hon. Gentleman talked of security. He ought to read the Bill carefully. The termination of tenancies, rent reviews and compensation are all dealt with in exact terms. There is no doubt that there is security of tenure for anyone entering a farm business tenancy. Without this reform, we should have only an endless succession of Gladstone v. Bower short-term tenancies.
This is a revoloutionary piece of legislation, which will ensure new lifeblood in rural England and in agriculture. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 181.

Division No. 129]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beggs, Roy
Dykes, Hugh


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valléy)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
French, Douglas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald





Hampson, Dr Keith
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Harvey, Nick
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Rendel, David


Hayes, Jerry
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Heald, Oliver
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Hicks, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jenkin, Bernard
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Speed, Sir Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sproat, Iain


Kirkhope, Timothy
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Kirkwood, Archy
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Knapman, Roger
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sweeney, Walter


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sykes, John


Knox, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lidington, David
Thomason, Roy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thurnham, Peter


Lord, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Luff, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Lynne, Ms Liz
Trotter, Neville


MacKay, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David
Tyler, Paul


Maclennan, Robert
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Maddock, Diana
Walden, George


Maitland, Lady Olga
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Malone, Gerald
Wallace, James


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waller, Gary


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Ward, John


Merchant, Piers
Waterson, Nigel


Mills, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Whitney, Ray


Moate, Sir Roger
Whittingdale, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Widdecombe, Ann


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nelson, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wolfson, Mark


Norris, Steve
Wood, Timothy


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley



Oppenheim, Phillip
Tellers for the Ayes:


Page, Richard
Mr. Sydney Chapman, and


Paice, James
Dr. Liam Fox.






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dobson, Frank


Ainger, Nick
Donohoe, Brian H


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Enright, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Austin-Walker, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bennett, Andrew F
Foulkes, George


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galbraith, Sam


Blunkett, David
Gapes, Mike


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hardy, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Doug


Church, Judith
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Coffey, Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S





Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Quin, Ms Joyce


Livingstone, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Ian
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mandelson, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meale, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy 


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Touhig, Don


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


Olner, Bill
Worthington, Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L
Tellers for the Noes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. John Cummings and


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Eric Clarke.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should draw your attention to a statement that has been made by Professor Graham Zellick, who I understand would be the new principal of the Queen Mary and Westfield college, as it has major implications for our proceedings.
I understand, that when Bills are laid before Parliament, they are part of the very process of legislating; that Parliament is supreme and Parliament decides. I should perhaps read you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a statement that undermines the credibility of what we are doing today. I will hand to the Clerks the statement so that you can be suitably advised.
It seems that Professor Zellick has said:
Whether we experience a brief delay of two or three months or even if the Bill is more seriously obstructed and we are unable to secure its passage in this session of Parliament, we shall nevertheless be able to bring about the unified School of Medicine and Dentistry as an integral part of QMW and we shall do that by the beginning of the 1995/96 session whatever the fate of the Bill…
The QMW Council has already made the necessary amendments to its own Statutes and they can be approved by the Privy Council even though the Bill has not been enacted. That will put in place all the necessary structures. We can also do the same with our Ordinances, which do not require any external approval. The HEFC grant for all three institutions will be paid through QMW. We shall therefore be able to function as if the merger had been brought about … We have made enormous progress in the planning for merger and it is now too late to pull back or to delay. I am therefore pleased to report the unanimous view of the Merger Implementation Committee that nothing must now be allowed to impede progress … we shall be able to function as a single institution in accordance with the plans and policies already agreed as from August 1 or any date no later than the start of the new academic year.
That is a significant statement. It means that the managers of the new structure have already foreseen circumstances in which they will implement changes before Parliament decides upon the matter.
The statement is outrageous. You may wish to advise the House how we are to proceed. If these people have powers under prerogative arrangements whereby they can proceed without the approval of Parliament, that changes the nature of the speeches that hon. Members may want to make this evening. Hon. Members would be debating another issue, not whether we should proceed. They would be debating the basis on which those people would be able to proceed without a decision of Parliament.
There is another matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us have blocked the Bill. I have done so because I want to hear a fair discussion of the issues involved. What happens if people such as me are honoured by being selected to serve on the Standing Committee that considers the Bill? What happens if we sit on the Committee without knowing the precise status of the statement that I have read out? In deciding what action Parliament wants to take tonight, decisions might be taken that undermine the credibility of this place and in

particular the credibility of members of the Committee. Perhaps you might be in a position to rule a little later, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) showed me a copy of the statement—it appeared in volume 18, issue 4, of Barts Journal for spring 1995, which was published a few weeks ago. It contains a lengthy quote that is attributed to Professor Zellick. I asked members of St. Bartholomew's hospital whether he uttered the words that are attributed to him, and they confirmed that he did. Bart's said that it was astonished and that the words were improper and a direct challenge to the authority of Parliament.
In backing my hon. Friend the Member for Workington I want to ask you this, and it involves deceit. A number of us—especially those of us who have blocked the Bill—have received representations from Professor Zellick and the sponsors of the Bill, telling us that it has to go through as a matter of urgency, otherwise medical education in east London will fall apart. We can debate the truth of that statement; it is a separate issue.
The professor has said that regardless of what Parliament does—even if we vote against the Bill tonight—the merger will go ahead. That suggests that the promoters have been sending opponents of the Bill, including myself, information that is deceitful. That is dishonest and it is part of an attempt to say that one can go behind the back of Parliament to the Privy Council. I am not sure how one can do so, and I have written books on the constitution.
The suggestion is that one can talk to clerks in the Privy Council office, who will talk to clerks on the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and between them the promoters, the Privy Council and the funding council can thwart the wishes of Parliament. There has to be something wrong with that procedure. I have never heard of it and nor, I am sure, has any other hon. Member of this House. I hope that you can give us guidance.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I should intervene at this point. The Chair cannot rule on whether there is an alternative way to deal with matters—that certainly is not within my compass. If hon. Members have grievances and concerns, it would be appropriate to raise them during the debate tonight, which might influence the way in which they vote. I cannot assume the result of such a vote but, for the purposes of argument, let us assume that, if the Bill went to a Standing Committee, such matters could be dealt with in far more detail. At this stage, we should continue the debate. I can deal only with the issue before us, which is the Second Reading of this private Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. What are we debating? Are we debating a Bill that would lead to the amalgamation of these colleges, and which is the only route to achieve that, or are we debating a Bill that might not lead to that amalgamation, but which permits another route being taken to secure it? We need to know. Surely it is for the Chair to rule on the status of the legislation. If it is not


within your area of responsibility, Madam Deputy Speaker, can the Minister clarify the position? What are we debating?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point clearly and at some length. If we deferred all business on the basis that we have imperfect knowledge, no business would be transacted in this place.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
I shall forgo the pleasure of commenting on the interesting points of order, but I do not think that the legislative matters before the House are unique. At times, the royal prerogative has been used to achieve a legislative purpose. Indeed, one of the great complaints of many Opposition Members is that much European Community legislation is achieved not through this House but through the use of that prerogative. Frankly, that should not deter us from considering the Bill now.
Although the words quoted are of interest and would no doubt repay close study, I am not entirely clear. The quotation might refer to the fact that informal and ad hoc administrative arrangements have undoubtedly existed for some time between the institutions concerned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it necessary to legislate if we are being threatened with the use of an alternative procedure? If that is the objective, why not simply avoid Parliament and pursue the other route? Why should we be subject to the whims of an external authority?

Mr. Shore: Such an alternative route would be far less satisfactory. I have not studied the matter closely enough and I am not saying that such a route for achieving the objectives of this Bill exists, but I have no doubt that it is far better for the House to debate the merits of it, as we are about to, than for it to read a pronouncement in the form of an Order in Council.
The purpose of the Bill is to unite three colleges of the University of London. Two are medical colleges—St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college and the London hospital medical college—while the third is the multi-faculty college of Queen Mary and Westfield. The Bill is promoted by those three colleges, with the overwhelming support of their councils.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I am really worried. Before I listened to the introduction to the Bill, I had no knowledge of the facts that were mentioned during the points of order. My right hon. Friend says that it is better for us to debate the merits of this Bill, and I agree, but we are assuming that, if one debates its merits, one can decline to pass it and that that act would have force. I do not understand whether we are going through a sham, or whether we can not only debate the merits of the Bill but take a decision, and that worries me. The fact that my right hon. Friend apparently condoned the notion that the royal prerogative could be used to outwit Parliament shocked me.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has clearly misunderstood what I said. I said that I did not approve of the alternative

way of enacting legislation. I drew attention to the many occasions on which I had protested against it, especially for European Community legislation, so let us be clear about that. I will proceed because I am not here to judge your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to second-guess what you have said.
The merger will bring together the clinical schools of the London and Bart's to form a single, strong faculty of clinical medicine. That faculty, with the faculty of clinical dentistry at the London and that of basic medical sciences at Queen Mary and Westfield, will constitute the new St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London hospital school of medicine and dentistry, which will be an integral part of the multi-faculty QMW.
The provisions of this short Bill are straightforward. It has a lengthy prologue of some 12 sub-paragraphs that recite a concise history of the formation of the institutions, beginning with the founding of the People's Palace technical schools in 1887, which was the forerunner of the present QMW and takes in the charter of the medical college of St. Bartholomew's, granted in 1921, and the constitution of the London hospital medical school, which was established in 1949.
Clause 3 provides for the dissolution of the existing bodies, while subsequent clauses provide for the transfer to Queen Mary and Westfield of certain properties, obligations, rights and powers to nominate members to education and other governing bodies. The appointed day is 1 August 1995.
There are three main reasons why the Bill should be accepted, and why I should be surprised if it proved to be a controversial measure. First, it is widely accepted that it is right to end the present separation of medical colleges from the rest of university life; secondly, the Bill is strongly supported by all three institutions; and, thirdly, it completes a process of merger between all three colleges, which already embraces their pre-clinical schools. I shall develop those points so that there can be no doubt about their meaning.
It has long been acknowledged that London is different from the rest of the country and much of the world in having medical training carried out by separate institutions rather than as part of multi-faculty colleges. There are cogent academic, administrative and financial advantages to be gained, not least by undergraduates studying medicine, from having medical training carried out within multi-purpose colleges. That point has been acknowledged many times and, dare I say, most recently by Sir Bernard Tomlinson.
The case for the Bill does not, however, rest on Tomlinson. The arguments and principles behind it are anything but new and go back many decades. Of particular relevance is the 1968 recommendation to the Royal Commission on Medical and Dental Education, which proposed that pre-clinical students—those in the first two years of their medical or dental courses—should study in a multi-faculty environment.
The unification of medical colleges with multi-faculty colleges has been going on all over London. Since 1968, a number of medical schools have been united, by private Acts of Parliament, with multi-faculty colleges of the University of London. For example, University College hospital medical school was united with University college in 1979; Kings College hospital medical school and Kings college, as a college of London university,


were united in 1983; St. Mary's hospital medical school and Imperial college were brought together in 1988; and the Middlesex hospital medical school was united with University college in the same year.
The Bill basically follows the form of those earlier Acts, as does the King's College London Bill, which is currently before another place and which will combine the united medical and dental schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's with Kings college.
My second reason for claiming that this Bill should be largely uncontroversial is that the merger is an agreed measure. I stress that point. All the governing bodies concerned have made that clear. In particular, Bart's hospital medical college has publicly stated that its decision to pursue an amalgamation with the London hospital medical college and Queen Mary and Westfield is its own decision, which it took because it thought that it was the right thing to do. In no sense is it a takeover bid, either by the London medical college for Bart's medical college or by Queen Mary and Westfield college for the other two.
The Queen Mary and Westfield council will henceforth contain two lay members from each of the present governing bodies of the two medical schools, with three academic members from those two colleges. Moreover, the Queen Mary and Westfield council is forming a committee on medicine and dentistry, on which both the London and the Bart's medical colleges will have still larger representation. As for personnel, the warden of the new school of medicine and dentistry will come from the London, and all those concerned want his deputy and successor to come from Bart's. Other senior appointments, including the chief administrative officer of the new medical school and, hopefully, the head of the new faculty of clinical medicine, will also be Bart's people.
My third reason for believing this to be a largely uncontroversial measure is that the merger which is the subject of the Bill is only the last stage of a move towards unification which was begun several years ago, and has already proved its success. In 1989, in accordance with the royal commission's recommendations, the pre-clinical departments of Bart's hospital medical college and the London hospital medical college, and their students and staff, were established in a purpose-built building on the Mile End campus of Queen Mary and Westfield college. They now constitute the faculty of basic medical sciences there. The three colleges are joined together to form the City and East London Confederation of Medicine and Dentistry. The proposed merger of the clinical departments is the culmination of that process and will build on the success that has already been achieved at the pre-clinical level.
One concern that was, and may still be, in the minds of some of my hon. Friends is the relationship between the Bill and the proposed merger of the two medical schools with Queen Mary and Westfield and the very different matter of the decision by the Secretary of State for Health to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. I deplore and oppose that closure decision in common with my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), whose constituents, like mine, are served so well by Bart's. May I make the point absolutely plain? If I thought that this

Bill would advance in any way the intended closure of Bart's, I would not be moving the Second Reading this evening.
The two medical colleges are entirely separate legal, financial and administrative entities from St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Royal London hospital. They are separate institutions. The Bill is not concerned with those hospitals and does not provide for the closure of Bart's. Whatever may or may not happen to Bart's—I very much hope that it will survive—there is a compelling academic case for the merger of those separate medical schools with Queen Mary and Westfield college.
The clinical training of medical students must take place where the patients are. Accordingly, teaching and research will continue at the main site of Bart's hospital at west Smithfield for as long as clinical activity remains at that site.

Mr. Sedgemore: I presume that my right hon. Friend is aware that, only two weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital. Where will the patients be once the hospital is closed?

Mr. Shore: Obviously, the moment that the hospital is closed, students will not be able to continue their training there. The Secretary of State has already taken that decision, and I presume that it will come into effect over the next two years. I am not quite sure of the timetable. Clearly, if the hospital is closed, students can no longer be taught there. That is what we all wish to oppose. However, the medical colleges are separate institutions and their fate is not linked with that of Bart's. Students will continue to be trained, as some are now, in the Homerton hospital and other hospitals in east London.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would my right hon. Friend say that his view on the matter is universally held by all people who work in Bart's—the professorship, leading clinicians and consultants, staff members and nurses? Is his view a general view?

Mr. Shore: I would hesitate to claim a universality of opinion on the matter—I simply do not know. I have received no representations about the medical schools' merger which show that doctors, nurses and other people working in Bart's are worried about it. After all—I make to my hon. Friend the point that I made earlierpre-medical and pre-clinical schools are already joined together and located basically on the Queen Mary site in Mile End road.
The fact that the Bill's proposals have such widespread support is demonstrated by the fact that there are only two petitions against it. They are interesting. One of them, from a Mr. Dawson, appears to allege that the House is unlawfully constituted and that no Act of Parliament is valid unless Royal Assent is given from the throne. Interestingly, it makes no complaint about the principle of the merger.
The other petition is from two former students of Bart's, now residing and practising in Norfolk. They do not approve of the merger of the medical colleges. The weight of opinion is against them there, including that of their own college. However, they also object—this is where some of my hon. Friends may find common cause with those petitioners—to the proposed closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital.
Although a Bill is being introduced to effect the merger of medical schools, no such Bill is required to close the hospital. As the petitioners say:
it is cause for serious public concern that such excellence has been threatened without proper democratic channels of debate in the Commons first being sought in regard to the merger of the two hospitals"—
that is, Bart's and Royal London hospitals. I have sympathy with that view, and the petitioners—the Bonner-Morgans—will be pleased to know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are pressing for an early debate and opportunity to discuss the proposed closure of hospitals in London, including Bart's.
It would be grotesque for the Bill to be jeopardised as part of some my hon. Friends' efforts to try to keep Bart's hospital open. Let us debate that issue when the time comes; the Bill has nothing to do with it. The creation of the unified St. Bartholomew's and Royal London hospital school of medicine and dentistry within a multi-faculty college of the university offers great scope to establish a medical and dental school of national and international distinction in teaching and research.
East London needs to have a strong medical school to match those being created in the south and west of the capital. Any delay in implementing the merger with, Queen Mary and Westfield will be harmful to students, to staff and to east London, and will not have any effect on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and to have listened to his cogent arguments for a measure that, as he has explained, will ensure that London retains its deserved international reputation for excellence in teaching and research.
As the right hon. Gentleman clearly said in his speech, London's research and academic excellence provides support for and gains from our health service. It helps our hospital and other services to respond effectively to medical and technological advances in treatment and to consider new ways of providing the best and most appropriate care. In turn, it benefits from centres of excellence in the health service providing a critical mass of work, a range of skills and expertise in clinical teams and high-quality treatment that enhances not just patient services but teaching and research.
That partnership is of mutual interest. It should be preserved and enhanced so that it continues to benefit academic, research and health interests. It should be strengthened.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way. I intend to make a short speech showing—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not utterly unprecedented for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and not to give way

on the Second Reading of a Bill? I have been in the House for 15 years and I have never known it before. Why does not he give way and take at least one intervention?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Having been here for 15 years, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is entirely for the hon. Member who has the Floor, whether he is a Minister or a Back Bencher, to decide whether to give way, and that is that.

Mr. Malone: As the hon. Gentleman also well knows, it is the convention during debates on such Bills for the Government broadly to give their position and to go no further than that, which is what I intend to do from the Dispatch Box this evening.
It is important that educational excellence is strengthened. The principle of linking medical schools into multi-faculty colleges, with strong departments of life sciences, is, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, an important step in that direction. As he also said, that is consistent with policies that have been pursued for some years by the University of London. Such mergers offer academic and other benefits for education and research. Both my Department and the Department for Education support that principle, and we look forward to continuing progress.
The Bill's promoters are to be congratulated on their efforts to provide the means by which that aim can be accomplished. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the principles on which the Bill is based stand on their merits alone. Those principles will help to strengthen the fruitful partnership between medical education, research and clinical services. They will do much to help secure London's place at the forefront of research and development in medical science and technology.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way, as I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat and hold his tongue.

Mr. Malone: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am happy to welcome the Bill in the light of the opportunities that it presents. The Government see no reason why it should not be given its Second Reading and move quickly forward to Committee.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is always a pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He made a fascinating and powerful speech. He has the capacity to be persuasive, even when he is wrong, and we heard a stunning example of that in relation to the European Economic Community. His rhetoric always moves us deeply. I mean no offence, and I hope that no offence is taken, if I say that I thought that his speech lacked substance somewhat and was based on what I would describe as sociological soundbites.
One thing that most of us desist from more than soundbites is sociology. Even if I did not have a temperament that tells me that sociology was not a science, I would have come out against it when I discovered that the Secretary of State for Health has a degree in sociology. No, I lie—she has two degrees in sociology. The mistakes and absurdities of her first degree in sociology led her to announce the closure of Bart's hospital two weeks ago. The mistakes and absurdities of her second degree in sociology have led her tonight to put up a frightened Minister who will not accept interventions to support what is effectively the devastation and closure, in spite of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, of St. Bartholomew's medical college.
I do not want to be too censorious, because I understand that the Secretary of State obtained her degrees in sociology at Essex university at a time when that was roughly equivalent to obtaining a certificate for attendance at a borstal institution. I do not want to be unkind to people who went to borstal, still less make invidious comparisons with the Secretary of State.
With the Bill has come a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Second Reading. I think that we can dismiss the validity of that statement fairly quickly and indeed, although I shall discuss them in more detail later, the validity of each and every argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made.
In that respect, while it remains fresh in the memories of people in the House, my right hon. Friend said that he had three arguments in favour of the Bill. The first was that, academically, everyone thought that clinical medical colleges should be inside multi-faculty universities and, in effect, clinical medical colleges would become the faculty of medicine in universities, and that St. Bartholomew's medical college would be the faculty of medicine at Queen Mary and Westfield college.
I say to my right hon. Friend that London university, of which St. Bartholomew's medical college and the Royal London hospital are part, has never issued a statement against free-standing medical colleges. I know because first some people from St. Bartholomew's hospital told me and then I had the sense to check so that I did not mislead the House. The university has never condemned the existence of free-standing medical colleges such as that which exists at St. Bartholomew's.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that the three institutions—the Queen Mary and Westfield college, St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Royal London hospital—were massively in favour of the Bill. That appears in the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, who say that that policy has been
enthusiastically adopted by Queen Mary and Westfield college and the two medical colleges and is supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
I am afraid that that is not true. That is bunkum.
The House should never have been told that by the promoters. I know that for a fact because I have spoken to scores of senior clinicians at St. Bartholomew's medical college and I have spent, including the Easter recess, the whole of the past fortnight researching the Bill, inquiring into the background and examining the past papers.
St. Bartholomew's medical college has supported the Bill only because of the decision in the Tomlinson report to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. Had that decision not

been made, even if there had been an argument for the merger of those two medical colleges—there might have been—we would not be here tonight. I can categorically assure the House that that is the case. I know that from my discussions with many of the people concerned, and I have documents and written evidence, which I will adduce to the House in due course, which show that to be the case.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is a distinguished politician; indeed, a great politician. He served a Labour Government nobly, and if he stands next time, I hope that he serves the next Labour Government nobly. He is a Privy Councillor, whereas I am a small figure in this grand plot, this great canvas. Therefore, he knows better than I do the concept of force majeure. He knows that when someone is so much under siege, so much under attack and so readily being destroyed by forces all around, they sometimes have to accede to that to which they would not otherwise. That, put bluntly, is what has happened in this case.
I repeat, had there been no proposal to close St. Bartholomew's hospital in the Tomlinson report, we would not be here debating the Bill and St. Bartholomew's would have opposed it. I also say in passing—I shall discuss the matter in further detail later—that when one reads the statement of the promoters or listens to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, it appears as though there has been some seamless process between the production of the report of the Royal Commission on medical education in 1968 and now.
Incidentally, it is a small matter but the royal commission is referred to by the promoters as the "Royal Commission on medical and dental education". One would suppose that a promoter who drew up such material could get it right. So that there should be no doubt about it, I have the Todd report—the report of the Royal Commission on medical education, as it is described on the cover—in my hand, and it says:
Whereas by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual bearing date the sixth day of August, 1965, We appointed a Commission, to be called the Royal Commission on Medical Education"—
so let us refer to it as that in future.
Now Know Ye that We, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge and ability, do by these Presents appoint you, the said John Norman Romney Barber and Elizabeth Leila Millicent Chilver to be Members of the Royal Commission on Medical Education.
Given at Our Court at Saint James's the eighteenth day of September, 1965; In the Fourteenth Year of Our Reign.
By Her Majesty's Command. Frank Soskice.
From the wrong title of the Royal Commission on medical education, which is not a good start for Professor Zellick, who is not 1,000 miles away, we are given a background note that provides us with that seamless process. It starts from the Todd report of 1968, and then there is a huge jump. It says:
In line with the 1968 Royal Commission, the pre-clinical departments from St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College and the London Hospital Medical College, together with their students and staff, were in 1989 established in a purpose-built building on the Mile End campus of Queen Mary and Westfield College as the faculty of basic medical sciences".


You do not need to be a mathematical genius, Madam Deputy Speaker, to realise that there is something of a gap between those two dates—a royal commission in 1968 and a move that took place in 1989.

Mr. Shore: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest, but the movement of opinion—let me put it like that—critical of free-standing medical colleges separate from multi-faculty universities is a growing one. I quoted four examples of previously separate medical colleges in London joining up with multi-faculty universities' departments. All four mergers that I mentioned took place before Tomlinson issued his report. There is evidence of a widespread and strong movement in the direction that I have suggested.

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall deal in some detail with the Todd royal commission, with the Flowers report of 1980 and with the Tomlinson report in so far as it affects St. Bartholomew's medical college. I shall go into enormous detail and present the counter—arguments, but I cannot do it all in one go. I am fastidious—I studied logic at Oxford and believe that there should be a beginning, middle and end to the story. I shall show that I am not trying to dodge the issue—

Mr. Peter Butler: I thought that the hon. Gentleman went to Essex university.

Mr. Sedgemore: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the Earl of Essex? I should have thought that that would be out of order.
I was talking about what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney calls the predisposition or the changing nature of people's perceptions of a medical college. I have been able to study the papers in great detail, as St. Bartholomew's has made them available to me. It has also made available to me the responses of the Royal London and St. Bartholomew's medical colleges at each stage.
When one studies the papers, one finds that in 1968 the royal commission, which was a high-powered commission, presumably set up by the Government of which my right hon. Friend was a member, was set up, but then put on the shelf. That was what people did in those days: a royal commission was set up when there was a problem. When it was found that there was no money to do anything, it was put on the shelf. I do not criticise anyone for that.
There was what I call the brutalism of the 1960s, when it was thought that everything could be solved in a simple way, including problems in architecture, medicine and education. It was what those in the 1960s called the rational way—

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Socialism.

Mr. Sedgemore: That is the word that no one in the House understands any more. We are none of us socialists now, as someone might say.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was referring to the Conservative local government reforms of 1974.

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall not take up my hon. Friend's point as I want to keep to the subject and keep in your good books, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the 1960s, when the report was being drawn up, there was a fantastic blueprint in London for every medical college—there were 12 of them if I remember rightly. The blueprint was to put medical school departments—pre-clinical and subsequently clinical—into multi-faculty branches of universities and make them university faculties. That was typical of all that happened in the 1960s.
I was a civil servant and I saw the same thing happen in architecture. Pluralism and diversity were taken away, as was any suggestion that anything could be successful and work if it did not conform to the pattern. From my time in the civil service, I have a good working knowledge of the way in which royal commissions work.
Some civil servants from the Department of Health obviously advised the high-powered medical figures, who I am sure also had some say. They convinced each other that there was one way of redeveloping medical education—the one way that my right hon. Friend has outlined. I believe that some people have since thought that it was a good way and some that it was a bad way. I shall come to why St. Bartholomew's has queried the method all the way along the line, contrary to what one would think, having heard my right hon. Friend and having read the promoters' note.
It is extraordinary that the promoters' note does not mention the Flowers report—it as though it did not exist. I find that bizarre. I shall quote from the report and produce the responses from St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college and the Royal London medical college. The bulk of the report involves the merger, but that is not mentioned in the promoters' note. I do not know how highly educated people managed to draw up the note and ignore that fact. Lord Flowers was not a fly-by-night; he was a distinguished academic and the vice-chancellor of London university.
The Flowers report into medical education was full of the merger and contained slightly different ideas. The report was carried out at the behest of the deans of the medical colleges in London. Lord Flowers was asked to undertake it because the Todd report had been put on the shelf—for the standard reason that there was no money—and no one had done anything about it. Nothing had happened in medical education.
Shortly after the switch of Government, we entered the 1980s. I was working in television and reporting in Manchester so I can remember the savage attack on university funds. It was inevitable that medical colleges would be included in that savage attack. The deans of the medical colleges said that they would not be able to cope with the way that things were going and wanted the vice-chancellor, Lord Flowers, to see whether he could point some way through and suggest how they could get by. I shall not lay out Lord Flowers' suggestions now, but I shall come to them later. They were roughly similar, but not identical, to those in the Todd report.
There was a fracas, and all the reports refer to the clash that was occurring, to academic arguments, to disputes between St. Bartholomew's medical college and the Royal London medical college. I have read all the annual reports of St. Bartholomew's medical college from the day that Lord Flowers reported up to the most recent report last year. I shall give some quotations from the reports later. I regret that, when one studies the archive reports for six days, with dust falling over one's hair, the picture of rosy consensus is shown not to be true.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney did not say a word about the fact that Lord Flowers threatened St. Bartholomew's medical college and said that, if it did not go along with the merger along those lines, he would see that its funds were progressively withdrawn. He went to the General Medical Council to say that in person.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where did my hon. Friend hear that from?

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall read it out from some annual reports. It is contained in some of the documents that I have. Lord Flowers threatened that the medical college would run out of money and would be unable to function as a medical hospital. The dean at that time was Dr. Kelsey Fry. Not only do I have Dr. Kelsey Fry's annual reports and his statement, but I took the precaution of talking to Dr. Kelsey Fry about six days ago. I know that it is true because at the time, in 1985, Dr. Kelsey Fry asked me, as the Member of Parliament for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—whose constituents benefit most from the work of both the medical college and the hospital—to go to see Lord Flowers to discuss the merger.
I tried to warn Lord Flowers that what he proposed would not be accepted and would not work, but the great Lord Flowers would not listen to a Back-Bench Labour Member of Parliament. I knew him reasonably well because, when I was parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Lord Flowers used to be the umpire over difficult nuclear issues. But he did not listen to me, and did not receive the vibes that I gave him. I tried to tell him that there would be trouble and that there might even be trouble in the courts—and there was. There was a judicial review—there was astonishment.
The idea that St. Bartholomew's medical college could take the Royal London and the London university senate to court sent shivers through the academic medical world. There was absolute uproar. Despite his threats, Lord Flower's proposal was never introduced. Instead of a total merger of pre-clinical schools—which was the suggestion advanced at that time—there was a judicial review and the proposal was withdrawn because the university senate could not tolerate St. Bartholemew's proving that it had acted improperly. A confederation of east London hospitals was formed instead and the merger of financial and administrative arrangements which seemed so to fascinate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney—one would think that he was an ex-Treasury Minister—never occurred.
My right hon. Friend referred to the co-operation between the two colleges. They were not always at each others' throats, as I shall show in a moment. They established a joint curriculum for pre-clinical work and in the clinical sphere—where the merger is now proposed—there were joint activities in seven or eight areas. I will list those in a moment. That arrangement had worked since 1990 and, if it had continued, there would be no need for a Bill to introduce a clinical merger.
I return to my right hon. Friend's intervention-1 have not digressed; I built up my case in order to reply to him. The civil servants who advised the Todd inquiry about the only solution to the problems of medical hospitals also advised Lord Flowers when he drew up his report in 1980,

which contained similar suggestions. Those civil servants from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health advanced the same ideas.
That is the way bureaucracies work. For example, the Board of Trade supported the policy of free trade for 200 years until it found that it did not work. Civil servants tend to come up with the same sorts of policies. However, on that occasion their views were not taken on board, because a flexible arrangement had evolved which Bart's and the Royal London thought could work, but which did work.
I am not sure why we are under such intense pressure to pass the Bill tonight. The situation is even worse. The Todd report was published in 1969. Another report commissioned in 1979 is not mentioned in the preamble to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) served on the royal commission inquiry into health. I think that she is the only hon. Member in the House to do so and I know that she wishes to speak later in the debate.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has conducted extensive research, but perhaps he has not read that very lengthy royal commission report, which was allowed to gather dust like so many other reports.
One of its main criticisms of medical colleges at that time was that the curriculum was inappropriate to the needs of the national health service. The system of selection of candidates for the medical college was also criticised because it was found that they came from only one part of society. We also found that the NHS was grossly underfunded. Perhaps we were advised by different civil servants from the ones to whom my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am sure that hon. Members will be genuinely interested in those comments, all of which are extremely valid. I shall pick them up, because I do not disagree with them.
The issue of the curriculum is heavily involved in the question of the two mergers—although presumably the pre-clinical curriculum has been dealt with already. At the time of the royal commission inquiry, one could have argued for a variety of reasons that medicine needed to be more scientifically based. I do not dissent from that view, and nor does anyone at St. Bartholemew's. Some hon. Members may not be familiar with the process of training to become a doctor. Students spend three years at a pre-clinical school achieving a degree in medical science, and they then spend the next two years achieving a degree in medicine.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, it was valid to claim that the medical curriculum did not place enough emphasis on science. That has been picked up on this occasion. Although it was not in the schema of the Todd or the Flowers reports, a merger—although not an administrative or financial one—of the Royal London and St Bartholomew's medical colleges eventually occurred in 1989, which came into effect in 1990. A new scientific curriculum was drawn up, which is identical to the one for students at Royal London and at St. Bartholemew's. It has worked and it is producing first-class doctors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley raised another point which I also believe is pertinent to the Bill. One of the biggest objections to the medical education curriculum was not touched upon by the promoters, but Professor Lesley Rees, the dean of St. Bartholemew's medical college, certainly discussed it with me. I am afraid that she will take some exception to the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that it was intended that she would become the warden after Sir Colin Berry. She has written me a note about that suggestion and she is hopping mad about it. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
She told me that the two medical colleges operate in poor areas of London. The colleges are very good at dealing with specialties and with standard acute medicine. However, many of the problems in the east end of London result from what occurs in the community. They are clearly linked to bad housing, unemployment, low wages and poverty. Doctors must be able to encompass the area of community health; it must not be left as a fag end for social workers to pick up. Doctors must know about the community, and their medical curriculum must take that into account. They must do their training in general practitioners' surgeries and in the community.
Professor Rees is not in the Gallery at present, so I shall spare her blushes. She is the dean of St. Bartholemew's, medical college and she is possibly the best dean in Britain. She has many outstanding qualities, but one of her greatest contributions to medicine has also been picked up by the curriculum of medical colleges all over London. Professor Rees ensures that students spend more time in general practitioners' surgeries as opposed to hospitals and she also ensures that they spend more time in the community. That has become part of the curriculum of the confederation of east London health authorities. That has meant a massive advance for doctors not only in east London but in London as a whole. The policy has spread as the General Medical Council has seen its value and the medical curriculum has been widened.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley expressed concern about the social intake in hospitals. One could criticise both hospitals—if anything, one could at one time have criticised St. Bartholomew's more than the Royal London hospital—about their intakes. I am not here to give a panegyric about Bart's. I am here to discuss a very important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley will find that the social background of the intake of the hospitals has changed.
There has been a massive change in both hospitals in one respect, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley will be pleased—the intake of women. Bizarrely, medical hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's and the London have, down the ages, been as antagonistic to women as some of the worst sectors of male chauvinism in Britain.

Mr. Malone: Such as the Labour party.

Mr. Sedgemore: The Minister tries to take me off the subject.
Amazingly, the first woman medical student to enter St. Bartholomew's hospital did so in the year 1850, and was called Elizabeth Blackwell. James Padget, who was in charge of the medical school at that time, interviewed

her and allowed her to enter Bart's, as she had a medical qualification from Zurich. He wrote some kind comments about her in his diary, and she wrote that she benefited from her experience at Bart's.
Of course, it could not last. When her sister tried to get into the medical college, people started to kick up a stink, and when some other women tried to get in, the matter was taken to the solicitors, and women were debarred from Bart's and the London for a long time. It was not until the NHS came into effect in 1947 that both hospitals were told that they had to admit women. Both agreed and, while I cannot talk about the London, I know that Bart's agreed that women should make up 15 per cent. of its. intake. In Bares—I imagine it is the same in the London—that figure is probably now 50 per cent. of the intake. My. hon. Friend for Cynon Valley made a third point which escapes me. It is not in my notes.

Mrs. Clwyd: It was the social background of the medical students who are taken into the colleges. One of our criticisms was that students tended to come from the same social background.

Mr. Sedgemore: I think that I have dealt with that point. My hon. Friend's third point may have been about the shortage of money.
I have not had time to read the royal commission's report on the NHS, although I have read the royal commission report on London medical teaching, the Flowers report and the Tomlinson report. I did, however, snatch a look at the royal commission's report tonight, as it dawned on me that I was missing something that I ought to see.
One very important paragraph in the 1979 royal commission report on the NHS is pertinent to the debate. It said that we needed to look after our teaching hospitals and to nurture them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley—who served on that commission—was involved in the agreement on that statement. The Secretary of State for Health is closing teaching hospitals and medical colleges, as well as hospitals. That is hardly nurturing them, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. To virtually shut down Guy's and most of its medical college and to close down Bart's and to destroy its medical college through the Bill is not nurturing; it is a destructive, wicked and evil force which civilisation will come to regret deeply, and which hon. Members—should it ever happen—will also come to regret.
I did not finish answering the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. Civil servants were involved in the Todd report, pushed the Flowers report into producing the merger and were then involved in Tomlinson. The same arguments have come out and—as I said to my right hon. Friend—this is the 1960s argument. There is an all-embracing argument for medical colleges which came from civil servants in the 1960s. The Tomlinson civil servants looked back to 1980, and those involved at that time looked back to 1968. We have a departmental policy stretching down two and a half decades, and that is nothing to be proud of.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney can say—it can be argued—that there is growing consensus. I say to him that the power of bureaucrats should never be underestimated. People think that they have beaten bureaucrats. Those involved at


Bart's thought that they had won after the Todd report, and in fact the report was accepted. They were told that there was no money to introduce the proposed scheme. They were threatened at that time, and also at the time of the Flowers report in the 1970s. Professor Shooter was threatened, just as Kelsey Fry, the dean of Bart's, was threatened more than a decade later.
Professor Shooter was threatened, and was told that, if he did not accept the Todd report, Bart's would suffer financially. Kelsey Fry—15 years later—was told that, if he did not accept the Flowers report, the same thing would happen. Then came Tomlinson, which said that the hospital would be destroyed and those involved would be left with no let out. The only thing that they could do was to hand over the property rights and the property to save some—but not all—of the jobs. That is what the Bill is about, and that is the brief answer to my right hon. Friend.
I would like to get on to my own speech now, as I have been answering the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who introduced the Bill. First, I shall present the broad picture, and then I shall get into detail and talk about world-class medicine and medical science. I shall then give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to answer the my points. I do not believe that we can debate this matter with soundbites, as the future of one of the greatest medical institutions the world has ever known is far too important for that.
We are here tonight to perform the last act in a plan to, wipe the name of St. Bartholomew's off the face of the earth. Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced her decision to destroy St. Bartholomew's hospital. Tonight, we are asked to pass a Bill which, in the light of that decision, will destroy Bart's medical college. We are being asked to drink from a poisoned chalice, and then carry out a foul deed in a state of some intoxication.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: These sound like soundbites.

Mr. Sedgemore: I was going on to say that we are being pursued by soundbites. We are being asked to complete one of the foulest deeds that any civilised society could contemplate, and it is unnecessary. The decision debases and demeans this House, and it is a deed which, if carried out—I hope that it will not be—will make sinners and barbarians of us all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney says that he has a vision of how medical science should proceed. I must tell him that it is a delusion. He has not properly linked—I hope to persuade him ere the night is out—the way in which the closure of the hospital will destroy the medical college which, I believe, once came close to saving his life. We are being asked to pass a Bill that will create a nuclear winter, to be followed by darkness through eternity and beyond infinity. Why would any rational or sensible person wish to do that?

Mr. Nicholas Brown: How can it go beyond infinity?

Mr. Sedgemore: That is what writers call poetic licence. This is a private Bill and Labour Members are on a free vote. It is sad that Conservative Members are not. That does not seem to be the way to deal with a private Bill. I know that because my pair told me, and Ministers have asked me how long the debate will last. I replied that

that was not up to me. They said that the Government would not let them be away. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, know more about this than I do, but that seems an abuse of parliamentary procedure—but I shall not raise that as a point of order or ask anyone to do so.
The principal of the new combined medical college, if it is ever formed, will be Professor Graham Zellick—currently principal of Queen Mary and Westfield college. As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can use that as a point of debate, which would be appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) produced perhaps one of the strangest documents ever from a private Bill's promoter. When one presents a Bill to the House, presumably one wants to avoid antagonising Members of Parliament by saying, "Stuff you. We don't care what you do. We have no interest in the parliamentary process. I, Professor Zellick, will arrogate to myself the powers of a free Parliament. I, Professor Zellick, will behave in an authoritarian fashion and proceed with this Bill, whether or not you like it. I, Professor Zellick, will take over the rights, duties and authority of the House of Commons. I have worked too hard for my vision and I don't care what Parliament says. My vision must take precedent over Parliament's vision."
These days, there is an extraordinary temptation to slag off Members of Parliament—to say that we are all into sleaze, are over-sexed and waste our time. I have not been wasting my time. I spent a fortnight working hard on this Bill because I believe that it should be defeated. Are we helped when a professor who purports to want the House to pass a private Bill goes public and says that he will take the House on is more powerful than Members of Parliament and is over and above us?
I met Professor Zellick when the blocking motion was tabled. I shall describe the detailed proposals later. When the motion was tabled, the Bill's promoters, including Professor Zellick, Clive Priestley and John Travis Clark from the Royal London—Clive Priestley being the lay member of Bart's and an excellent man, asked me to meet them to discuss the Bill. I did not think that Professor Zellick was a bad man at all.

Mr. Skinner: Is he the principal?

Mr. Sedgemore: He is the principal of Queen Mary and Westfield college and will be the principal of the new combined college. I thought that Professor Zellick was well intentioned but uninspiring. I thought that perhaps he was an academic bully, but my experience of academics is that most of them are capable of behaving in a bullying fashion from time to time. Even some hon. Members are capable of that, although of course I exclude myself from that description.
At that discussion—as another hon. Member was present, this can be verified, and Professor Zellick made his own notes of the meeting—I think that the professor lacked judgment a bit. That does not make him a bad man or mean that he could not run the combined college reasonably well. I genuinely thought that, until I stumbled across a particular document. I told the House earlier that one of my hon. Friends showed me a copy, but I admit that I stumbled across it individually. No one will believe that. Everyone will think that somebody from Bart's medical college thrust it into my hands and asked me to come to the House to cause trouble. That simply is not true.
I was browsing through years and years of Barts Journal—not that of the hospital but that of the medical college. Volume 18, issue 4 for spring 1995 contains a letter from Professor David Tomlinson of the department of pharmacology at Queen Mary and Westfield college. It begins "Dear BJ"—B for Bart's and J for journal—and refers to an article in the Evening Standard stating that the Bill might be in jeopardy. According to Professor Tomlinson—I have verified this with people at Bart's, who said that it was true and who were themselves shocked—there is a huge direct quote of around 800 words from Professor Zellick. It says that people reading the Evening Standard might have thought that the Bill was getting into difficulties. He said that the Bill faced two obstacles. There were three petitions against it.
I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney for telling the House that now there are only two petitions against it. There was another, slightly longer and much more pertinent petition from the students of St. Bartholomew's medical college and Royal London medical college—

Mr. Shore: It was withdrawn.

Mr. Sedgemore: I know that it was withdrawn. Marcus Beadle signed it, and I spoke to him on the telephone when he produced it.
Professor Zellick insists that no pressure was placed on the people concerned to withdraw that petition. In an article in another issue of Barts Journal, Marcus Beadle talks about a hectic two weeks. From the moment the students lodged that petition, people started talking to them. Is that not typical? They did not talk to the students for months on end about their future—and they are only the whole future of medicine in this country. But when a private Bill appears, there is a bit of trouble and Parliament wants a democratic debate, there is a frisson. It is a matter of, "Come in, Marcus. What do you want? I'll do anything."
I do not blame Marcus Beadle for his action—I believe that it is called log-rolling politics in America. Marcus, and presumably students from the Royal London, went to see the great professor—the Dr. Strangelove of science, as we will call him after the House has heard this lot. The professor cleared up lots of points about the students union, lodgings, finance, space and money. But other objections were never cleared up—the more serious, medical objections to the Bill relating to massive uncertainty in east London about the whole health system, caused by the Minister who would not give way earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.
Much of that uncertainty has been caused by discussion following the publication of the Tomlinson report in 1992, until the Secretary of State's statement two weeks ago that the hospital is to close. Of course that will make a difference to the way that students work. The very existence of Bart's medical college is called into question.
What happens if we close a teaching hospital—I put the argument rather bluntly; my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney might think that it was put too simply, but often simple arguments are important ones—and close the medical college as well? I confess to being rather simple at times. What is the result

if a Bill is introduced to merge the college with the Royal London hospital medical college? I shall tell my right hon. Friend what almost anyone at Bart's will tell him, if he cares to talk to them rather than listening to the outward signs of Professor Zellick. The professor says, of course, that there is no connection, but that is absurd. Of course there is a connection. Is it thought that the doctors at the hospital are divorced from those who are providing medical training and undertaking medical research?
I know that there are some pure researchers. Indeed, I shall provide the data. There are many more pure medical researchers at St. Bartholomew's hospital at the Charterhouse square site than there are at the Royal London hospital. It should be said that the researchers do a wonderful job. I shall not demean them. Indeed, I shall name some of them as part of a separate argument. It must be understood that hundreds of doctors and consultants are teaching medical students. They are undertaking their research in departments that are on the hospital site. Their work is not being done in separate buildings. By and large, medical departments are at medical hospitals.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Many of the consultants and practitioners may be on the site because they like working at the hospital. With that in mind, is there not a great danger that many of them will leave London and go elsewhere? As a result, the new school might lose the expertise of these extremely important people.

Mr. Sedgemore: I assure the House that my hon. Friend has picked up my next point and that there has been no rigging. He has taken up the point that I was about to make to my right hon. Friend the Bethnal Green and Stepney.
The greatest single cause of uncertainty and of people leaving St. Bartholomew's hospital and the medical college was the threat, and then the announcement, of the closure of the hospital. I know that that is true. Professor Lesley Rees, the dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college, gave me a list of people who were leaving. That was before the Bill was introduced. It is quite a long list. Of course, I do not want to encourage anyone else to leave. That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington made.
We are talking about an extraordinary centre of excellence. My main argument is that it does not need the proposed merger. Powerful medical teams have been built up. They treat patients and lecture to students. I know that that happens. I have talked to people who do both things. There are not two separate entities operating in two different worlds. The people involved are part of an ethos.
There is an academic culture such as we would find at Oxford or Cambridge. There is such a culture to be found at Birmingham, for that matter. There is one at Cardiff, and a very good one, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington will find an academic culture in the lakes.
Members of powerful medical teams have been attached to an academic culture, sometimes for 50 or 60 years. They have been attached also to a history that is 872 years old. That is the hospital. I shall go through the history of the medical college. There is a massive historical background of people striving monumentally for the same thing. I understand that. I do not say that Corpus Christi, the college to which I went at Oxford, is a piddling little place with 132 people who would benefit


from a mega-merger with Christ Church, Balliol or Queen's. Corpus Christi was a centre of academic excellence and a place which one could be proud to go to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington has said, there have been hundreds of years of excellence at St. Bartholomew's hospital. When it is said that the hospital will be closed, the result will be to break up the medical, teaching and research teams. That is the point. Some of the letters that I receive make me so angry. People write, "Don't you know the difference between a hospital and a medical college?" With a degree in logic and having studied linguistic philosophy—the meaning of meaning—I should know the difference between a hospital and a medical college. I know also about the links between a hospital and a medical college. I know too that, when a hospital team is broken up, along with hospital treatment and research, staff will leave.
Professor Rees, the dean of St. Bart's medical college, has fought an heroic battle to save both a hospital and a medical college. The list that she showed me is all to do with the closure of the hospital. She made contact with Professor Frances Heidensohn, the chairman, as she likes to call herself, of the East London and City health authority, and said, "If you close this hospital, I shall lose more and more staff and the former staff will never be rebuilt. My staff will never go to the Royal London."
What about the list? It is a list of people who are not going to the Royal London. They have gone elsewhere. They have gone because a centre of academic excellence has been destroyed. I resent being told to learn the difference between a hospital and a medical college.

Ms Mildred Gordon: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that some years ago I went to see Professor Zellick. He made the case that the medical college at the London hospital, as it was then, was deeply in debt and badly run. He argued that it would be much better run by Queen Mary college. At that time there were no plans—if there were plans, they were hidden and had not been announced—to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. It seemed that there was no linkage. It may be that something needed to be done at the Royal London medical school. Nevertheless, it seems a great pity that that is now linked with the closure of a great hospital such as St. Bartholomew's. What has my hon. Friend to say about that?

Mr. Sedgemore: These matters are said to be linked and then they are said not to be. It is interesting to look back on what Professor Zellick has said and what is contained in the Todd, Flowers and Tomlinson reports. There is one significant difference. The Todd report never recommended the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital. Closure was not within a thousand miles of those who sat on the royal commission that considered the national health service. They may have had some doubts about some medical colleges and hospitals, but they did not recommend the closure of the world's most famous hospital. As I have said, closure was never in their minds. The Flowers report on the merger that appeared in 1980 was not drawn up on the basis that the hospital might shut and that we would see a cross-over of patient care, teaching and research and damage to them all.
It was only the Tomlinson report that recommended, first, that the hospital should be shut and, secondly, that a merger should take place. It was then that the entire position changed. It is the crass or wanton inability of

people to link those two features of the Tomlinson report that is producing such anger in me and, I imagine, in almost everybody on the Opposition Benches. I should say that most of our colleagues have left it to us to argue the case. That is fine because that is what we said we would do.

Mr. Skinner: I think that my hon. Friend must address his remarks at this point to a letter that I have received. I am one of the signatories to the blocking motion. As a result, during the past two or three days, I have received letters from people like this Dr. Zellick—or Dr. Strangelove, as my hon. Friend calls him—and various other people. The letter is from a fellow called Arnold Wesker. The only person whom I know by that name is a playwright, or was, presumably from the east end. This gentleman is now living at Hay-on-Wye. I suppose that that is where the luvvies are. He wrote:
Dear Dennis Skinner
I've just been made an Honorary Fellow of Queen Mary and Westfield College.
He is now involved in its affairs, naturally. He is probably under the thumb of Dr. Zellick. Mr. Wesker, an honorary fellow of that quango, asked me why I have put my name to the blocking motion—

Mrs. Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 1, Noes 167.

Division No. 130]
[8.50 pm


AYES


Campbell-Savours, D N




Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Dennis Skinner and



Mrs. Ann Clwyd.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brandreth, Gyles


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alton, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ashby, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Callaghan, Jim


Baldry, Tony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beggs, Roy
Chapman, Sydney


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clappison, James


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Betts, Clive
Coe, Sebastian


Booth, Hartley
Connarty, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)






Dixon, Don
Maddock, Diana


Donohoe, Brian H
Maitland, Lady Olga


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Merchant, Piers


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Faber, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fabricant, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Norris, Steve


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Gallie, Phil
Paice, James


Gardiner, Sir George
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Rendel, David


Gillan, Cheryl
Richards, Rod


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Riddick, Graham


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Rooney, Terry


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hague, William
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Harvey, Nick
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hayes, Jerry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heald, Oliver
Sackville, Tom


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hendry, Charles
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spring, Richard


Jack, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jenkin, Bernard
Stephen, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Stewart, Allan


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Thurnham, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kirkwood, Archy
Tredinnick, David


Knapman, Roger
Trend, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trimble, David


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Trotter, Neville


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Wallace, James


Knox, Sir David
Ward, John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waterson, Nigel


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Whitney, Ray


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Whittingdale, John


Lewis, Terry
Widdecombe, Ann


Lidington, David
Willetts, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wilshire, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wolfson, Mark


Luff, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McFall, John



MacKay, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclean, David
Mr. Bowen Wells and


McMaster, Gordon
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Sedgemore: Well, there you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If anyone was in any doubt as to whether the Government had taken over this private Bill in a scurrilous fashion, we have just discovered the proof of that. I am sure that it will lead my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), when he replies to the debate, to decide not to support the Bill.
I was quoting from a letter from Professor David Tomlinson—

Mr. Skinner: If my hon. Friend recalls, when "I spy Strangers" was called I was in the process of reminding my hon. Friend that I am one of the signatories to the blocking motion. As a result, I have been inundated with letters from people asking why. I have a good answer. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said today.
I have had a similar letter today from Arnold Wesker, whom I assume is the playwright, who lives at Hay-on-Wye. He says that he has been made an honorary fellow of Queen Mary and Westfield college. He says:
I write about the … Bill which is to be debated on … Wednesday April 19th. I understand that you and other MPs seek to block the Bill. Permit me to ask why and to briefly argue in its favour.
He goes on to say that there is no connection between the college and the hospital.
That fellow has been made an honorary fellow. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend seems to know that there is a direct link, an umbilical cord, between the hospital and the college. This man—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be reasonably short. He has been speaking for more than a minute on this intervention, having started it previously. I should be grateful if he would wind up and, if he then wishes to catch my eye, he may do so.

Mr. Skinner: I intend to, but I need to tell my hon. Friend, because he has not had a letter from Arnold Wesker, whom I assume is the playwright.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have.

Mr. Skinner: Arnold Wesker says that he cannot understand why we should seek to block a merger that appears to offer high standards in medical education and research.
It seems odd to me that that bloke has been put on this body as an honorary fellow, yet he cannot see the direct connection between the college and the hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) should use this opportunity to provide an adequate answer to Mr. Arnold Wesker.

Mr. Sedgemore: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Before he does that, will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the same issue.

Mr. Sedgemore: Very well.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I too had one of those letters written in exactly the same terms as that written to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I replied to the letter because it suggests that we do not have the right to debate the matter on Second Reading. Mr. Wesker does not seem to realise that the only way in which we could secure a debate at this stage was by laying down an objection. Had he realised that, he might have understood that this is a procedural mechanism by which


Members of Parliament hold the Executive accountable. It gives us our only opportunity to ask Ministers questions on the implementation of legislation of this nature. Unless we choose to debate these matters, clearly the public will not know what is happening in a particular case.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend has partly answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right, however. He saw me becoming angry and upset a moment ago about the claim that none of us knew the difference between a hospital and a medical college. I explained, in fairly strong terms, that it was not possible to close the world's greatest hospital, cutting off patient care, teaching and research—those three services being linked—without having a severely damaging effect on its medical college.
I do not want to attack Mr. Arnold Wesker. He is a playwright; I am an author. The old idea of medical institutions, and even the Labour party, having "luvvies" on their boards does not help the argument. With due respect, it is clear that Mr. Wesker has no idea what he is talking about. He may have had dinner with Professor Zellick and got hold of some rather tatty and tawdry argument—but I do not think that I should repeat what I said earlier. Although you were not present then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to try to deceive you about what has been happening.
In his letter to the Barts Journal, Professor David' Tomlinson gives direct quotations from what Professor Zellick has said. Apparently, he does not care whether the Bill is passed tonight—or at some other time—because he will proceed with the merger regardless. He does not care about Parliament. It has all gone on for too long; he is fed up with politicians, and does not respect the democratic processes.
The letter says:
Whether we experience a brief delay of two or three months or even if the Bill is more seriously obstructed and we are unable to secure its passage in this session of Parliament, we shall nevertheless be able to bring about the unified School of Medicine and Dentistry as an integral part of QMW and we shall do that by the beginning of the 1995/96 session whatever the fate of the Bill.
It goes on to say that arrangements have been made between the Privy Council and the Higher Education Funding Council to use the royal prerogative to frustrate the will of Parliament if need be. That takes the biscuit.
The letter continues:
it is now too late to pull back or delay. I am therefore pleased to report the unanimous view of the Merger Implementation Committee that nothing must be allowed to impede progress".
That apparently includes the will of Parliament.
Hon. Members must take into account the good faith of the Bill's promoters. We are entitled to ask what kind of medical college will be created by the merger, and who will lead it. If the person who is to lead it has been selected before the Bill has been given a Second Reading, and shows himself to be wholly hostile to parliamentary democracy, I should have thought that, by definition, he is not fit to run a major academic institution. Surely the House should not merely delay the Bill, but throw it out. It is appalling that a professor should arrogate the rights of Parliament, and say that our work does not matter.
I think that, when people have had a chance to study this astonishing outburst, Parliament will want to set up an inquiry into its proceedings on this and future Bills.
The Secretary of State for Health should make a statement from the Dispatch Box about this approach to private Bills concerning the national health service. It is not Professor Zellick's health service; it is Parliament's and the public's health service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney should, in all decency, be prepared to withdraw the motion.
Should the Bill receive a Second Reading, which I hope that it will not, I believe—Madam Deputy Speaker dealt with this point during earlier points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you took the Chair—that the Committee that eventually considers it will want to see Professor Zellick and the Privy Councillors involved, or members of the Privy Council staff, and members of the Higher Education Funding Council. It will want to find out how it is possible to override the will of Parliament through the exercise of the royal prerogative in regard to a Bill such as this.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I find great difficulty in understanding why the students changed their minds and why they withdrew their petition. Could it be that some sort of educational pressure was exerted on them? Is there any evidence to support that? Or could it be that the students were told that whatever happened in Parliament was irrelevant and that the college, by pursuing the use of the royal prerogative, could secure its objective anyway? Perhaps that is what convinced the students to change their minds. I am sorry to take my hon. Friend back to that point, but it is important.

Mr. Sedgemore: In truth, I cannot push the matter much further, although I can help my hon. Friend a little. The students would have seen the letter and the speech, because they were published in the Bart's medical college journal—and the leader of the student group at St. Bartholomew's, Marcus Beadle, writes a regular column for the journal. I assume that he reads the rest of it, so that may have subconsciously affected his decision.
As I have said, Professor Zellick told me at a meeting, which my hon. Friend attended, and also in a letter, that he has put no pressure on the students. Perhaps he has not done so, but senior clinicians at Bart's medical college have simply said to me, "Of course pressure was put on; you are a politician so you know the way these things work. The pressure is never direct, it is indirect." I am afraid that our trade is a little dirty—although not in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and the academic world can probably be as dirty, backstabbing, malicious and vicious as some politicians—not me—can be. I think that that is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.
Until now, I have been dealing with the preliminary arguments. My central argument is that Bart's medical college is a jewel of medical colleges and a centre of medical excellence unrivalled throughout the world. It can stand on its own. Whatever the sociological arguments produced by civil servants, by the Todd report in 1968, the Flowers report in 1980 and the Tomlinson report in 1992, the truth is that a pre-clinical confederation already exists between Bart's medical college and the Royal London medical college. That confederation works perfectly well. It has not brought together the administrative structures or the finances, but it allows for flexibility and for evolution in the development of medical education.
I want to refer to the Bart's site; the Royal London can speak for itself, as I am not an expert on that matter. There is an extraordinary centre of medical excellence on the Bart's site. There is also an extraordinary centre of patient care, but that is being abolished. However, we are not talking about that today. The preamble to the Bill suggests that one reason for the proposed merger between Queen Mary and Westfield college and the Royal London and Bart's medical colleges is that that would produce an institution that would be nationally and internationally renowned. That was a central feature of the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney when he introduced the Bill.
I intend to argue that we already have at the medical college of St. Bartholomew's a centre of national and international renown. I defy him in his reply to the debate to argue against that when he has heard my arguments. I intend to go into detail to prove that and challenge my right hon. Friend or anyone else who is in favour of the Bill to say that I am wrong.

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Sedgemore: I know that my right hon. Friend is going to say that he agrees, but that is not good enough. If we already have the centre, he must say that he can improve it. I do not believe that he can and that is my point. I will give him every opportunity to go into the detail, not the sociological soundbite.
Professor Zellick, one of the promoters, came to a Room in the House of Commons and said to me, "I want to produce a world-class institution." He said it as though, if we said, "Yes, go ahead," we would get a world-class institution. That is the way sociology works. The civil servants who thought about the proposal back in 1968 wanted to produce a world-class institution. They thought that, simply by repeating the words, it would happen. I say that we have a world-class institution and we could destroy it.
How do I prove that St. Bartholomew's hospital is a world-class institution that can stand on its own without the need for the merger?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a letter from the dean of the medical sciences building at the University of Toronto? It is a letter to the Prime Minister dated 7 January 1993. He says:
St. Bartholomew's has a reputation for academic excellence in clinical care, medical education and research which is recognised around the world. My most direct knowledge of St. Bartholomew's concerns Gastroenterology in particular. St. Bartholomew's has been an acknowledged leader in Gastroenterology for more than 100 years. Currently, its clinicians, scholars and scientists in the Academic Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology are recognised world-wide. These facilities represent a resource to London, to Britain and to the international academic medical community.
That was from a Mr. C. A. Ottoway MD PhD FRCP, of the medical sciences building at the University of Toronto. I understand that he is the dean of the department. So my hon. Friend has an example. I have many examples in this book.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend is privileged to have letters which I do not have. I have heard of that particular

dean. He is of international renown. When he says that in gastroenterology St. Bartholomew's has a department of world excellence, I am inclined to believe him.
The point that my hon. Friend has to make, and I have to make in order to persuade the House, is as follows. My hon. Friend has dealt with one area. The fact that St. Bartholomew's is recognised internationally as excellent by someone whom we can respect does not mean that it is excellent across the board. How does one prove that an institution is world class? That is the onus on me in this debate. How can I prove to the House that here we have a world-class academic institution which is excellent across the board? Normally, one could not do it.
If we ask people at St. Bartholomew's hospital what they are like, they will tell us that they are brilliant. Of course they will. If we ask people at Corpus Christi college what they are like, they will tell us that they are brilliant. If we are to prove it, we must find external proof across the board.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend yet another quotation that is equally valid. It comes from an institution in Amsterdam—the Academisch medisch centrum. I do not speak Dutch so I cannot pronounce it right. It says:
Worldwide and certainly in Europe the significance and the fundamental contributions of St. Bartholomew's Hospital are unanimously recognised. For many decades the hospital has been a leading institute in many areas of gastroenterology. The contributions towards medicine and medical care of many of its distinguished physicians and surgeons in the past and in the present have been of immense importance in many areas of gastroenterology. I would like particularly to refer to all the recent work with respect to diarrhoeal diseases and to various infectious diseases. But there are many other areas in gastroenterology where St. Bartholomew's has excelled.
There are letters from all over the world in this document and they spell out and emphasise the important contribution that that medical college makes in those areas.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an important contribution. If he has many such letters, I hope that he will catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps he will be able to cover more of the spread than gastroenterology and immunology.

Mr. Skinner: That still does not prove it.

Mr. Sedgemore: By accident, I can prove that St. Bartholomew's is a global institution, a jewel in the crown and something that any civilisation would be silly to destroy. I shall not prove it in relation to the hospital, as we have had many debates on that, but I think that I can do so as regards the medical college. It is up to right hon. and hon. Members to decide whether they think that I have proved it.
The Tomlinson report contained two recommendations on St. Bartholomew's hospital. One was to close it and the other to merge its medical college with the Royal London medical college, which is what we are discussing. I think that the report referred to that being done in relation to the Queen Mary and Westfield. Those announcements sparked off a frisson throughout the medical world and the globe.
People did not sit back and say that it was something that was happening to some minor hospital somewhere in Britain—well, not somewhere in Britain but in the


constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and the heart of London, our capital city. They did not say, "It has nothing to do with us." They wrote about it. What is the quality of the people who wrote? What was the scale of the coverage and the depth of their feelings? I shall not quote whole letters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington did.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was only a part of the letter.

Mr. Sedgemore: Then it had even more power.
St. Bartholomew's has released to me 344 letters from 48 countries, which were sent to Professor Lesley Rees, the dean of the medical college. To be absolutely fair, some referred to the hospital, but most referred to the medical college and said its resources should not be split up or merged and that it should not disappear as it was one of the world's great institutions. If it works, why muck it around? That is the gravamen that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney must answer.
I have carried out a fairly unusual analysis of those documents across a wide range of the spectrum. After hon. Members have heard it, if they do not think that it adds up to a global institution that can stand on its own, they should speak and we can carry on the argument.
I spent several days undertaking this new type of summary of the way in which one analyses such things. First, I asked what countries the letters came from, did, they cover a wide spectrum of the globe and were they from important or unimportant people.

Mr. Skinner: What do you mean—important or unimportant?

Mr. Sedgemore: I mean, did they have academic excellence upon which the House could rely or were they people writing odd letters and saying—

Mr. Skinner: I do not like elitism.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend is quite right. Elitism is favouritism. We are talking about academic excellence and in that sense, when it comes to preserving institutions of academic excellence, in one definition of the word I am an old-fashioned conservative. I hope that that will give Conservative Members some comfort. I am trying to behave responsibly in this debate.
The spread of countries from which letters have been sent is extraordinary. It includes Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada—17 letters—Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the West Indies, the United States—97 letters—Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Romania, Portugal, Poland, Oman, Norway, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Malta, Malaysia, Malawi, Kuwait and Japan. Anyone can see that some countries are missing and that some 70 or 80 countries in the world are not represented, but basically that list represents the whole of the advanced medical world, which has sent letters. Is it not worth the House taking notice of them?
I have looked at the number of letters that came from distinguished universities, which I know from my experience and reading have academic experience in the medical world that is worth noting. The following

universities sent letters of support and said that this is a global institution and we would be foolish to let its human and property assets dissipate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has my hon. Friend seen correspondence supporting the merger from any of those countries?

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend raises a good point and the short answer is no, I have seen not a single letter in support of the merger.

Mr. Shore: I have seen no letters against the merger.

Mr. Sedgemore: That is because my right hon. Friend has not been doing the talking and delving that I have been doing inside St Bartholomew's hospital in the past fortnight. One then gets a different story, but that is a point for later on.
The distinguished universities concerned are, in Australia: Monash university; the University of Adelaide; the University of New South Wales; the University of Queensland; the University of Tasmania; the University of Western Australia; and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, which is almost a university. They all said that this is a world-class institution and we should not break it up or let it go.
From Brazil, we received letters of support from the University of San Paulo. From Canada, we had letters of support from McGill university; McMaster university; the Tom Baker cancer centre, Calgary; University hospital, London, Ontario; the University of British Columbia; the University of Toronto; the University of Vancouver; and the University of Western Ontario—all the great universities of Canada. From Finland, we had letters of support from the University of Helsinki and the University of Turku.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of that overwhelming body of opinion worldwide that has written to the Prime Minister, the hospital or whoever in support of retaining the existing college structure, is it not odd that the Minister is unwilling to come to the Dispatch Box to answer a simple question: if it is the will of Parliament that this Bill does not proceed, is it right for the college authorities to proceed on the basis that they can use the royal prerogative? Is it not odd that, given the overwhelming weight of support, Ministers stand aside and not reflect publicly on those matters?

Mr. Skinner: They are arrogant.

Mr. Sedgemore: As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, they are arrogant. The arrogance of 17 years of one-party rule is destroying our national health service, but I shall concentrate on the Bill before us.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems entirely inconsistent with Government policy when, at the same time as they are trying to promote the City of London as a financial centre in the world, we have reactions from all over the world to the dismantling of a great medical institution? Can we imagine our competitors in Frankfurt or Paris doing something similar while trying to attract wealth and jobs to their city?

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend makes a point that the City of London realises only too well is perfectly valid. One cannot imagine any other country breaking up a medical institution of this character. The chairman of


the policy and resources committee of the City of London corporation, who is obviously a Conservative—Mr. Michael Cassidy—wrote only a week ago about the disaster that is befalling the City of London.
We have had representations from the Aristotolean university at Thessaloniki and Athens university in Greece, the university of Budapest in Hungary, the University of Esfahan in Iran, University college, Cork, Ireland, the Chaim Sheba medical centre at Tel Aviv university in Israel, the University of La Sapienza, Rome, and the universities of Bologna, Florence, Genoa, Milan, Modena, Naples Padova, Pavia, Siena, Trieste and Turin in Italy, Kyoto university in Japan, Kuwait university, the University of Malta medical school, the Academische Ziekenhuis in Groningen, Academische Ziekenhuis in Utrecht, the Catholic university in Nijmegen, Erasmus university in Rotterdam, and the University of Amsterdam. That is virtually the whole of the Netherlands, which has a reputation in medical science.
We have had representations from the universities of Auckland and of Otago in New Zealand, the University of Oslo in Norway, the universities of Lisbon and of Porto in Portugal, the Moscow state university, and the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow university.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who wants to change the present position?

Mr. Sedgemore: Apparently, nobody in the whole world wants to, apart from whipped Conservative Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
We have had representations from the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, the universities of Natal and of Stellenbosch in South Africa, the universities of Barcelona, of Madrid and of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, the universities of Gothenburg, of Lund, of Umea and of Uppsala in Sweden, the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Hôpital Cantonal Universitaire de Geneve and University hospital, Zurich.
We have had representations from the Albert Einstein college of medicine, New York, the American Cancer Society, Columbia university, Cornell university, Georgetown university, Harvard university, Indiana university, Iowa state university, the Johns Hopkins medical school—one of the greatest medical schools that the world has ever known and ever will known—Loyola university in Chicago, the universities of Stanford in California, Alabama—

Mr.Campbell-Savours: What are they all saying?

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall come to that.
We have received representations from the universities in Arizona, California, Detroit, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Miami, Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Florida, Southern California, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia Washington, North Carolina and St. Louis. [Laughter.]
Hon. Members are laughing, but those are 114 of the world's most prestigious universities with medical schools. One or two of them may have written letters that are over the top. They may have done it out of kindness, but one cannot get 114 of the world's top medical colleges to say, "Keep this medical college as it is, linked to its

hospital, and let this global jewel get on with its business." I do not know how my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney will answer that. That is the geographical spread.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned gastroenterology. I said that it was all right to mention that but that plenty of other medical sciences existed. How does the spread go in those letters? It goes throughout the medical sciences.
Bart's is being described as a megacentre of academic research and of doctors' teaching and training in the following areas: anatomy, basic science, cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, clinical biochemistry, clinical pharmacology, dermatology, diabetes, endocrinology, gynaecology, gastroenterology, haematology, human nutrition, AIDS, medical education, medical informatics, medical oncology, metabolism, microbiology, molecular genetics, nephrology, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics, orthopaedic surgery, pathology, paediatrics, paediatric endocrinology, paediatric gastroendocrinology, paediatric oncology, pharmacology, physiology, preventive medicine, psychiatry, radiology, reproductive physiology, surgery, transplant surgery and urology.
That is just about every medical discipline that we know about. Representatives of all those disciplines say that Bart's is magnificent; it is wonderful; it works; keep it; leave it alone. Why have we come here to destroy it?
I shall not read long letters, but I should like to read a few small excerpts. Hon. Members may judge the quality of the people who have written them in relation to the hospital.
Professor Bela Halasz from Hungary wrote:
I was shocked … I was startled … Its scientists are leading members of important international organizations …In my opinion it would be a very great loss, if they
were dispersed. He knows what he is talking about. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney knows him.
On basic science, Professor Guido Pozza from Italy wrote:
It is my strong opinion that such a decision will bring about a great loss for biomedical research in U.K … I do really hope that St. Bart's shall not end its activity.
On cardiology, Professor Sean Blake of Dublin wrote:
It seems to me that this would be a tremendous tragedy.
Dr. Richard Hauer from the Netherlands wrote:
It was with astonishment … deepest support to attempts to avert this highly undesirable development.
Professor Wellens of the Netherlands wrote:
many new developments in the diagnosis and management of cardiac arrhythmias have come from colleagues working in St. Bartholomew's Hospital … St. Bartholomew's Hospital is academically very much alive.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sedgemore: May I just develop this point? I am looking at the clock and I want to give other Members a chance to speak.
On cardiac surgery:
I am astonished … a beacon, a lighthouse and a guide to, not only the Londoner, but also, to the people of the United Kingdom and the world at large … the fate of such a perennial institution, cannot be determined by an ephemeral … body"—
I assume that that is a reference to Parliament—


this national treasure
wrote Professor Gerard Guiraudon of Canada.
On clinical biochemistry, Professor Jarob of Germany said:
This tells a lot about successful and excellent education going on not only in Dr Galton's department but also in the whole institution. So I am sure the closure of this tradition-rich famous institute would be an irreparable error … I feel strongly about my conviction".
On clinical neurophysiology, Anna Maria Seppalainen of Finland wrote:
St. Bartholomew's has often exercised interdisciplinary approach … This type of approach is severely endangered if the facilities and specialists should be dispersed in various locations.
On clinical pharmacology:
several highly respected physicians and surgeons from Bart's have, over the years, contributed to continuing education at the Academy as Distinguished Academicians … There is thus a longstanding academic and professional link between Bart's and the medical community of Singapore … it would be a disastrous mistake to close the Hospital.
That is Professor Vernon M. Oh from the national university of Singapore.
On endocrinology, Professor Luiz Cesar Povoa of Brazil wrote:
As a member of the executive Committee of the International Society of Endocrinology I can testify to the high concept of this institution and its contribution to the Endocrinology not only in England, but in the whole World. So, it seems, I repeat,' incredible … England is respected in the world by its capacity in maintaining tradition, developing new sophisticated techniques and training in a high level
of
Human Resources. Undoubtedly, St. Bartholomew's Hospital is a symbol of this statement." 
On gynaecology, Professor Masterson at the university of Florida in the United States of America, who is one of the great experts in his field, wrote:
surprise and dismay … one of only six training centres approved by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for clinical and fellowship training in Gynaecological Oncology.
Dr. Holmesley of North Carolina in the United States of America is another respected expert. He said that the
most critical loss would be an active training programme in Gynaecological Oncology".
That is roughly the same statement that I have just read out from the other source.
In the sphere of haematology, Professor Sherrill Slichter from Washington, America, said to Professor Lesley Rees, Dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college:
Your department and institution are well recognised as examples of the best in medical education and scientific excellence … I would consider it both a personal and professional loss to the haematologic community if your department was no longer in existence." 
On the subject of immunology and AIDS, the Ruprecht-Karls university in Heidelberg, Germany states that there are
alarming reports … the work of St. Bartholomew's is highly respected in the international transplant community … ranks among the best institutions worldwide.
Professor Jonathan Mann from the Harvard school of public health, another major university, said:
Beyond the clinical and academic excellence associated with St. Bartholomew's, I have had the opportunity to observe the high level of international collaboration which the facility and its senior staff, such as Professor Anthony Pinching, have manifested. Professor

Pinching has been a major figure in AIDS research and in global thinking about HIV/AIDS … a major concern would emerge should St. Bartholomew's cease to exist." 
Anthony Pinching came from St Mary's—he is one of the people whose work with the Government stopped the onslaught and spread of AIDS in this country. If his department were to be ripped up, we would all pay a terrible price, but, apparently, that may be on the cards.
In the sphere of medicine, Professor Casanueva of Spain said:
for Endocrinology, your hospital is the most important and leading unit in Europe … prevent this absurd measure.
Mr. Michael Thorner said:
the current policy appears to be precipitous and poorly thought out … Bart's not only serves its patient base, but it is an important centre for teaching of medical students, as a postdoctoral training institution and as a centre for medical research.
The evidence goes on and on. I think that I am beginning to prove my point.
I also looked at one of the major medical institutions of the world—the equivalent of a medical college in Britain. I looked at what 10 people from that one major institution had said to see whether, across the board, I could get a favourable result. I looked for the reaction of the Harvard medical school, one of the greatest medical centres that the world has ever known. Ten professors were asked what they thought.
Professor Goyal from the department of medicine of Harvard medical school said that he felt "great astonishment" and that
the adverse effects of its closing will be felt in the medical community throughout the world.
Professor Walker of the department of paediatrics said that he was "absolutely overwhelmed" and that it was
outrageous … that the government should wish to close such a wonderful example of what British medicine has contributed to the world of medicine, medical research and to the quality of care of patients.
Professor Mannick of the department of surgery at the Harvard medical school said:
I find this shocking in the extreme … St. Bartholomew's is a source of inspiration for academic physicians and surgeons throughout the world.
All the other professors say exactly the same.
Professor Nichols of the department of gynaecology and reproductive oncology said that he felt "astonishment and sadness". He said:
This centre of international communication in medicine has earned the respect of colleagues throughout the world … It is so easy to dismantle that which took professionals generations to develop, but the negative consequences for the women of the world will be those with which we must all live for a very long time.
We can look at the letters in another way. I do not think that anyone has ever done this kind of analysis in support of an institution in this country. Ostensibly, we have a lot of letters which make academic medical points. However, we wish to highlight the strength of the emotions involved. How strong is the emotional tie with St. Bartholomew's? There is a negative emotional response to the idea of closing the hospital and merging the medical college and I have picked out some of the words which show the depth of that feeling.
I have analysed the letters and the principal words used again and again include: "shocked", "dismayed", "astonished", "disbelief", "deepest concern", "saddened", "surprise", "amazement", "appalled", "distressed",


"horrified", "stunned", "devastating", "overwhelmed", "disturbing", "inconceivable", "incredible", "unthinkable", "astounded", "apprehension", "speechless", "horrible", "alarmed" and "You must be kidding".
The other side of the coin is how Bart's Smithfield is viewed around the globe. Some of the words used in the letters are: "unequalled", "pre-eminent", "world renowned", "venerable", "irreplaceable institution", "true legend", "wonderful unparalled example", "landmark without peers", "international role model", "pillar", "a beacon", "jewel", "a lighthouse", "shining light", "admiration", "envy", "a guide", "prestigious", "scientific strength", "innovative", "dynamic", "unique", "resource benefit of mankind", "incredible traditions", "highest distinction and renown", "top-flight", "great citadel", "magnificent", "dedication to excellence", "second to none", "superb reputation" and "national treasure". That is how people from abroad view the institution.
If the great medics of this country were to meet the top 25 endocrinologists, cardiologists, physiologists or experts in any field—this exercise is not connected with the letters—would anyone from Bart's be in the room? Would anyone from Bart's stand as an example of that institution's international quality?
If one entered a room containing the world's top 25 endocrinologists, one would find Professor Michael. Besser, professor of medicine at Bart's. Every endocrinologist in the world would recognise him. I do not wish to embarrass him, but Professor Besser is as close as one will ever get to a genius. He is not only a professor of medicine but also a chief executive following the publication of the Tomlinson report. He fought an heroic battle to save St. Bartholomew's hospital.
He would be recognised as the professor of medicine and the chairman of the department of medicine at Bart's. His department of endocrinology received a commendation in the 1992 research assessment exercise. He is a world leader in endocrinology and he has been a visiting professor to universities and medical establishments in Canada, China, Hong Kong, Italy, Malta and the United States of America. He was recently elected senior vice president and senior censor of the Royal College of Physicians.
He is currently chairman of the working party on hormone replacement therapy. He has served on the editorial board of the Journal of Endocrinology and the Journal of Neuroendocrinology and he is currently a member of the editorial board of clinics in endocrinology and metabolism. He could stand among the world's top 25 endocrinologists and people would look up to him. He also performs another function which is not quite as important—he is in charge of the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington when my hon. Friend is a patient at St. Bartholomew's hospital. That is the kind of genius and department that I am asking the House to fight to preserve, and not to let slide away into oblivion with the closure of the hospital. Once the department has gone, we will not get it back.
Professor James Malpas would be recognised in that room. He is currently the senior physician at St. Bartholomew's hospital, and he is a world authority on childhood cancer. He is president of the Association of Cancer Physicians. The department that he heads has an international reputation, from both the clinical and

academic points of view. It received a commendation in the 1992 research assessment exercise. The professorial heads of several oncology departments in this country and the heads of at least three departments in north America—

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 22.

Division No. 131]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Alton, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Amess, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Arbuthnot, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hague, William


Ashby, David
Harris, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hayes, Jerry


Atkins, Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hendry, Charles


Baldry, Tony
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Bates, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Booth, Hartley
Jack, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bowis, John
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Brandreth, Gyles
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brazier, Julian
kirkhope, Timothy


Bright, Sir Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Browning, Mrs Angela
Knapman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Butler, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knox, Sir David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chapman, Sydney
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Clappison, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lidington, David


Coe, Sebastian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Connarty, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Conway, Derek
Luff, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dalyell, Tam
MacKay, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maddock, Diana


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dover, Den
Malone, Gerald


Dykes, Hugh
Mans, Keith


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Evennett, David
Merchant, Piers


Faber, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fabricant, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nelson, Anthony


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


French, Douglas
Norris, Steve


Gale, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gallie, Phil
Ottaway, Richard


Gardiner, Sir George
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


Gillan, Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John






Rendel, David
Tredinnick, David


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wallace, James


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sackville, Tom
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wood, Timothy


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Raymond Robertson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Barnes, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
McFall, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Pike, Peter L


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Redmond, Martin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Cohen, Harry
Wise, Audrey


Cox, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Davidson, Ian



Dixon, Don
Tellers for the Noes:


Donohoe, Brian H
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Etherington, Bill
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 19.

Division No. 132]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Peter


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Amess, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clappison, James


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dalyell, Tam


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Booth, Hartley
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)





Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


French, Douglas
Norris, Steve


Gale, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gallie, Phil
Ottaway, Richard


Gardiner, Sir George
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


Gillan, Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Rendel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Richards, Rod


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hague, William
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hardy, Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Harris, David
Sackville, Tom


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hendry, Charles
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Soames, Nicholas


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jack, Michael
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sproat, Iain


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stephen, Michael


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Stewart, Allan


King, Rt Hon Tom
Streeter, Gary


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trend, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Knox, Sir David
Wallace, James


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Waller, Gary


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ward, John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Waterson, Nigel


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


MacKay, Andrew
Willetts, David


Maclean, David
Wilshire, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Malone, Gerald
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Mans, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wood, Timothy


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Merchant, Piers



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Raymond Robertson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Etherington, Bill


Barnes, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D N
Pike, Peter L



Redmond, Martin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Wise, Audrey


Connarty, Michael
Wray, Jimmy


Cox, Tom



Davidson, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Donohoe, Brian H
Mr. Brian Sedgemore and


Eastham, Ken
Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at to-morrow's sitting, the Speaker shall—

(1) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the First Report from the Committee of Privileges not later than two hours after their commencement; and 
(2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Withdrawal of Members from Meetings of Select Committees not later than one and a half hours after their commencement;

the Questions aforesaid shall include the Questions on any amendments of the Motions which she may have selected, which may then be moved, and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wood.]

Campaign Stars and Medals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted that my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is present. I am sure that, like most if not all hon. Members—including me—he has for some time been receiving invitations to attend events in May, and the rest of the summer, to commemorate the end of the second world war both in Europe and over Japan. Last year, many of us attended commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings.
When victory finally came 50 years ago this year, all involved knew that they had been part of—to use General Eisenhower's words—a "great and noble undertaking". Countless thousands of men and women were rewarded for their part in that noble undertaking with campaign stars and medals that were richly deserved; but in the immediate aftermath of the war, many looked not back at what had been but ahead to what might be.
They naturally wanted to turn their backs on six years of war, and return as swiftly as possible to civvy street, to try to pick up the pieces of their former lives, and perhaps shut out the terrible experiences that many had been through. No blame should attach to those who did not apply for medals at that time: I believe that they were, and are, just as entitled as those who claimed them.
Many sailors, soldiers and airmen did not claim the medals they had won for their part in the campaign that led to victory in the years immediately after the war. As the years rolled on, however, they began to put matters into perspective; the achievements of the war years came home to them, and pride in what they had done gradually began to surge in their veins again. Younger family members began to take an interest in what their fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts had done to help bring about victory. More years passed, and grandchildren began to ask the same questions.
One such is my constituent Mr. Tony King. He first came to me with his claim for a war pension. He served in the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards from 1942 to 1946, as a tank driver and latterly as a crew commander. Regimental history tells us of an action on the evening of 2 September 1944, when there was strong enemy resistance around St Pol. The regiment was ordered to carry out a night march around the right flank, and to cut the roads leading east from the town.
During the morning of the following day, regimental headquarters was shelled—and that is when the incident to which I shall refer occurred. A high-explosive shell exploded near to my constituent, killing an officer standing beside him and wounding 14 others, including Mr. King. After prolonged hospital treatment, he returned to his regiment on the River Maas and, finally, was discharged in December 1945.
In part, the problem with his war pension resulted because of asbestos contamination in the storerooms in which the records were kept. Incidentally, a seven-days-a-week operation was carried out at the time to clear up the storerooms, so Mr. King's records were and are readily available. His claim for a war pension was finally accepted in April 1994, in good time for the 50th


anniversary of the actual incident I have described. It was granted on the basis of hearing loss, anxiety and depression, and shrapnel wounds to his head, upper back and left leg.
Only last year, Mr. King took an emotional trip back to northern France to retrace his wartime exploits. His four grandsons had already begun to take a keen interest in his war record, so, like many others, Mr. King made a belated request for his medals so that he could wear them with pride during this year's commemorations.
He was able to furnish the Ministry of Defence with copies of forms relating to his release from active service, together with his pension reference number, so it was reasonable for him to assume that his right to the medals would be established quite simply and the medals duly issued. Failing that, Mr. King simply wanted confirmation of his right to the medals, so that he could wear miniature replicas at the ceremonies—not, most people would believe, a difficult request. That happened in January.
Mr. King's letter to the MOD was swiftly acknowledged, but it was a great disappointment. He was told that, along with hundreds of other veterans applying for medals, he would have to wait 12 months before they could be processed. The letter said:
In recent years there has been a considerable upsurge in belated claims … to as many as 1,800 a month … Every effort is being made by the small team involved in the issuing of Second World War medals to speed up the processing of claims.
I took up the matter with Ministers at the MOD in early' February, and received a reply from Lord Henley. He said that many people had chosen not to apply 50 years ago, and that the increase in applications had inevitably added to the backlog in processing such claims. He also referred to the asbestos contamination problem, which I have already mentioned.
He said that, currently, the delay in issuing Army medals is about 12 months, although, if the claimant was seriously ill, priority would be given. He said that some additional staff had been recruited. The letter continued:
The increase in applications for campaign stars and medals places a heavy burden, not only on the staff working on these claims at the Army Medal Office, but also on those who are responsible for locating individual personnel Service records".
Finally, my hon. Friend the Minister answered a parliamentary question on the same subject on 15 March.
Of course it is absolutely right that checks should be made. We cannot have people walking around at these ceremonies wearing medals to which they are not entitled. However, I have two major criticisms of the approach adopted by the MOD in its correspondence with both my constituent and myself. First, it seems to have been taken by surprise by the rise in demand for old campaign medals as we approached the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. But even if that is reasonable, there was a similar blip last year, coming up to the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings.
My second major criticism is that I do not accept that more could not have been done to deal with the problem. It seems to me that there was a total failure to see that this year's commemoration ceremonies would be the first and, in some cases, sadly the last opportunity for some of the world war two veterans to take part and wear their medals with pride.
What is the point of priority treatment for the seriously ill, who of course are every bit as deserving of the medals as anyone else, when it is the fit and well who wish to

parade in this special year? It is true that some additional staff have been recruited, but clearly it was not enough. I was told that new staff would have to be trained to process medal claims and that that would take time, but how complex can the training be?
It is not easy for veterans who claim their medals, such as my constituent, Mr. King, to understand why it takes so long to process these legitimate claims. Most of them can produce detailed evidence to show that their claims are genuine. After all, the records proved only a little while earlier that Mr. King was entitled to his war pension. I understand that the medals were cast in sufficient numbers to satisfy the demand. It should not be beyond the wit of man, let alone the MOD, to devise a temporary system to satisfy the claims of the brave men and women for whom this year is such an important milestone.
We are fortunate in Britain to have a large, dedicated number of men and women working in the civil service, but, with respect, this problem shows the British civil service at its worst.
It has been suggested that some of the veterans could borrow medals from other people. Despite the kindness of such an offer, perhaps from a widow, it is not the same as having one's own medals. Exactly the same argument applies to the suggestion that I have heard, that second-hand medals can be bought across the counter. The stars and medals have little intrinsic value, but they are the outward and visible sign of the courage of those who wear them and the gratitude of those of us who come after.
In conclusion, could I tell my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister what I am realistically asking for in the debate tonight. I have been pressing the issue for some time in correspondence and in a parliamentary question. I began to apply some time ago for an Adjournment debate. I have already said that Mr. King first wrote to the MOD back in January.
It is obvious as we debate the issue this evening that there are not many working days left until VE day. I look for an assurance this evening from the Minister that far greater energy and priority will be put into the project. It is clear that we should try to do as much as we can by VE day, but let us at least set ourselves the target of clearing the rest of the backlog by VJ day in August. It is time to end this medal muddle. The problem will not be. repeated.
Many of us go to remembrance day parades and so on every year. We often sing on such occasions the famous hymn with the words:
Time, like an ever-rolling stream, Bears all its sons away".
I sometimes wonder whether there is an attitude in some parts of the civil service that this is a problem that will go away, because many of the veterans are becoming elderly and infirm.
In some cases, it will, sadly, be our very last chance to show our gratitude to these men and women. I do not mind if a few civil servants lose some sleep, or even earn some overtime, in the process. It is little enough compared to the many hardships endured by veterans such as my constituent Mr. King. Lastly, I ask that, on this issue, the MOD show some of the "can do" spirit that Mr. King and so many other young men and women showed 50 years ago.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) securing this very important debate, which focuses attention on our second world war veterans, on the extremely powerful and persuasive way in which he put his case, and on the way in which he has represented the case of his constituent Mr. King in respect of this claim for some considerable time.
As you will know, with your constituency interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, this year is especially important as we remember the almost unbelievable efforts and huge sacrifices made by those who fought and died to maintain the freedom of this country and our independence 50 years ago this year. As the House knows only too well, the Government and the nation fully recognise the immeasurable debt that is owed to all ex-service men and women who took part in the conflict.
I hope that they will feel that that debt will be well demonstrated by the breadth and scope of the events that are being planned throughout the country to commemorate in a fitting and dignified manner victory in Europe next month, and victory over Japan in August.
The plea that my hon. Friend has made so powerfully this evening, and all that he has done on behalf of his constituent Mr. King, will readily find much sympathy within the House and wherever this debate is reported, but I regret that the solution that my hon. Friend seeks is not' as simple as he or I might wish, as I know he will realise.
Since the battle of Waterloo in 1815, campaign service in the armed forces has been recognised by the institution and award of medals and ribbons, which have been issued to all eligible service men and women without charge.
Following the cessation of hostilities in 1945, a number of medals were proposed for service in world war two, and were approved by the sovereign for issue to those who took part. The first medals were available for issue in 1948, and all those still serving in the armed forces were issued with their medals automatically.
By 1948, however, many of those who had served in the war had been demobilised. Many had changed their place of residence after leaving the armed forces, or had emigrated, and consequently were impossible to locate, despite, in many cases, the most strenuous efforts. As a result, it was not possible to issue all awards automatically to those entitled to receive them.
Responsibility for the issue of second world war medals was transferred in 1950 to the single service Ministries. That included the Army Medal Office, to whom the lion's share of the task of issuing war medals fell, and with which my hon. Friend has been having correspondence and dealings, via my noble Friend the Lord Henley.
Unlike the first world war, when medals were automatically issued to enlisted service men, following world war two, all ranks had to apply. To ensure that as many individuals as possible were aware of that, a very extensive advertising campaign was undertaken by the Government of the day.
For many reasons, there was a steady trickle of claims. However, for a larger variety of reasons, many people chose not to apply for their medals. In more recent years, many ex-service men and women have been inspired to claim their medals as a result of the large number of second world war anniversaries and commemorative

events, which will come to a climax this year, the anniversary of VE and VJ days. That is precisely the position in which Mr. King, my hon. Friend's constituent, now finds himself.
My hon. Friend has asked why we cannot do more to speed up the issue of the medals, and I should explain a little of the background and the steps that we are taking to do what we can to speed it up, as my hon. Friend rightly wants.
First, the charter of the Army Medal Office—and, indeed, the Navy and Royal Air Force Medal Offices—is to undertake the award and issue of all medals, that the first priority is rightly the issuing of medals to those who are still serving, as their medals are an essential part of their uniform and are recognition of their current service. Despite that, considerable efforts are made to deal with both categories equally.
It is not always appreciated that the assessment of medal entitlement for past service, which may have been some years ago, is a skilled and precise task, and cannot be done as speedily as we and my hon. Friend would naturally wish. To ensure that claimants receive their full, just and honourable entitlement and, equally important, to ensure that medals are issued only to those who meet the strictest criteria, an individual's personal file must first be recovered from very extensive historical archives.
That information is then compared with both the orders of battle, detailing the various ships, squadrons and units involved in particular regiments, operations and campaigns, and the regulations and qualifying conditions for the various campaign stars and medals, to determine that a medal claimant receives those stars and medals to which he is entitled. Considering the age of many service records, it is something of a feat in itself for the staff of the medal offices to retrieve all the appropriate information.
My hon. Friend will realise that all files dating back to the second world war are manual records, and although there might be some superficial attraction—clearly, in the case of this debate and this year, there would be a superficial attraction—in transferring them to a modern, computerised database, there are some 25.5 million records, only a small proportion of which are ever considered generally for pension or medal purposes, as Mr. King's have already been looked at for pension purposes, thanks to my hon. Friend's intervention. Moreover, such an exercise would be prohibitively expensive.
None the less, substantial computer support has been purchased for the medal offices and is being introduced to deal with routine correspondence, but the majority of that work, and the most complicated and time-consuming part, must still be carried out manually on a case-by-case basis after the most thorough and detailed research.
To give the House some idea of the scale of the work, on just the applications for medals from Army veterans of world war two, the Army Medal Office processed more than 24,000 cases last year. That is all the more remarkable, as staff could not access the Army records centre files from May 1993 until February 1994, due to the fact that archives had to be closed for health and safety reasons, so that asbestos dust contamination could properly be removed by specialist contractors for the safety of those working there.
Although the inevitable backlog of applications that resulted from that closure was cleared very quickly by the exceptionally hard work and expertise of both staff at the archives and the Army Medal Office, to whom I pay a warm tribute tonight, first-time applications, of course, continued to arrive.
Not surprisingly, the general interest shown by the media in last year's wonderful commemorative events to mark the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings resulted in a fantastic increase in applications for campaign stars and medals. I want my hon. Friend to be wholly reassured that the most proper and regular contingency plans were prepared in anticipation of such a surge in interest. The need to clear the backlog caused by the closure of the Army's archive has, however, inevitably added to the delay in processing such claims.
Unfortunately, even by working what my hon. Friend rightly said they should work—substantial overtime—the Army medal office cannot keep up with the number of claims that it has received, which are running at around 2,000 per month.
My hon. Friend suggested that extra staff should have been established to deal with that. While appearing attractive, the reality would be that, to divert experienced people away from their detailed, primary and urgent task to train new staff would have been self-defeating, and would also be at a time when my, Department rightly aims to reduce expenditure on support organisations. In general, that policy commands my hon. Friend's support.
I wish my hon. Friend and his constituent Mr. King to be reassured that medal applications are being processed as quickly as humanly possible. We should not lose sight of the fact that Army Medal Office staff, for example, have managed to process nearly 8,500 applications in the first three months of the year—many of which involve two or more medals—which is well above what they would normally, under any reasonable circumstances, be expected to achieve.
With first-time applications still arriving on a daily basis, barely weeks before the planned commemoration events, I am afraid that it is entirely inevitable that some veterans will be disappointed. By working at the rate that they are, however, medal offices are continually eroding the backlog, and all staff at the three service medal offices are working regular and substantial overtime in an effort to ensure that as many veterans of world war two receive those medals before the VE and VJ day celebrations, when they will clearly wish to wear their decorations with pride.
Despite all those efforts, we of course accept that all claimants for world war two medals, who are of advanced years and mainly retired from full-time employment, feel that their time is running out, as my hon. Friend, in a most moving conclusion to his speech, rightly said. The vast majority accept, however, that, as they and a great many of their former colleagues have waited 47 years to apply for their medals, there will be an inevitable delay before they receive the medals that are due to them. Many veterans have written letters of the warmest gratitude, often expressing profound surprise that medals for service performed so many years ago are still available.
My hon. Friend rightly and understandably suggested that we should perhaps give priority to veterans who will be able to attend this summer's commemoration. We consider it of primary importance. We are at pains at all times to maintain that all claims are dealt with equitably and fairly. We think that it is only right that they are dealt with in turn and order of claim, the only exception being where a claimant can show proof that he or she is facing a life-threatening illness or condition. Such cases, however, are rare.
With the degree of interest in the forthcoming events to mark the 50th anniversary of the second world war, and the focus on the events and achievements of half a century ago, it is not surprising that many thousands of veterans of that conflict have decided to apply for their medals, prompted by memories and stirred by images of those sacrifices and of the service that they gave many years ago.
Although millions of people have applied for and received their awards since their institution in 1948, many individuals, for understandable reasons of their own, have chosen not to claim them until now. The tremendous influx of applications, numbering, as I said, more than 2,000 a month, has created a temporary backlog of cases that no amount of manpower or equipment could possibly resolve. Although the staff of the medal offices are working flat out to ensure that as many veterans and their families as possible receive their medals, I am afraid that, as I said earlier, some disappointment will be quite inevitable.
On the detail of the case which was raised so formidably by my hon. Friend, I understand that Mr. King joined the Royal Armoured Corps in March 1942, following three years in the civil defence service in Bristol as a cycle messenger. He served with the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards—the Skins—and no finer regiment exists in north-west Europe. He was discharged after being wounded on 28 December 1945. He and I have one thing in common: we were both trained as boy soldiers at Bovington.
Although Mr. King could have applied for his medals at any time in the past 50 years, it is perhaps unfortunate, although perfectly understandable, that he did not apply until 26 January this year. I am pleased that, even under the exceptional pressure, he nevertheless received a reply within four days from the Ministry of Defence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
I am afraid that that is, regrettably, a typical case and, although Mr. King will receive those medals to which he is properly and honourably entitled after his gallant war service, it will simply not be possible for us to process his application any faster than the many other applications that are being dealt with currently.
Before closing, I remind my hon. Friend, if he needs reminding, that the giving and receiving of medals has always been an emotive subject. Winston Churchill, when Prime Minister, summed it up at this Dispatch Box in a speech on 22 March 1944, when he said to the House:
The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them … a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it it is of less value … A medal glitters, but it also casts a


shadow … All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest"—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
That remains our aim today.
Whether with medals or without, we hope that the events of this summer will provide a vivid reminder of the huge debt that we owe to that generation, who sacrificed so much so that subsequent generations should so casually and so lightly enjoy freedom.
That debt can never be fully repaid, but we shall always strive to do our best, and that includes continuing to do all we reasonably can to ensure that as many of those veterans as possible can proudly display their medals this summer. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the formidable, powerful and sensible way in which he presented a most persuasive and eloquent case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.